Katherine Flores v. Alastair Dizon Reyes ( 2020 )

Opinion issued May 5, 2020
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-19-00067-CV
———————————
KATHERINE FLORES, Appellant
V.
ALASTAIR DIZON REYES, Appellee
On Appeal from the 387th District Court
Fort Bend County, Texas
Trial Court Case No. 14-DCV-219522
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This is an appeal from a final divorce decree dissolving the marriage of
appellant Katherine Flores and appellee Alastair Dizon Reyes. On appeal, Flores
contends that she received ineffective assistance of counsel during the divorce
proceedings. We affirm the trial court’s decree.
Background
Alastair Reyes and Katherine Flores married in January 2014. They had one
child during the marriage. In December 2014, Reyes filed for divorce, and in
October 2015, Flores filed a counterpetition for divorce.
In October 2016, Flores’s counsel withdrew. A year later, new counsel
appeared on behalf of Flores, and within six months, the court granted a third
attorney’s motion to substitute as counsel for Flores.
Reyes moved to compel discovery. Neither Flores nor her counsel appeared,
and the court ordered Flores to respond to interrogatories and requests for
production and ordered her to pay $900 in attorney’s fees. The court later held a
hearing on Reyes’s motion for enforcement and contempt proceedings. Neither
Flores nor her counsel appeared. The court ordered both parties to mediation
before May 20, 2018, granted the motion for sanctions, and ordered Flores to pay
Reyes’s attorney’s fees of $1,200. The court later waived mediation and set the
case for trial.
Both parties were represented by counsel at trial in August 2018. Flores,
Reyes, and Reyes’s mother testified, and Reyes’s counsel testified regarding
attorney’s fees. The trial court appointed Flores and Reyes joint managing
conservators of the minor child. The court awarded Reyes the exclusive right to
determine the child’s residence within Fort Bend County or its contiguous
2
counties, the exclusive right to receive and disburse child support, and the
exclusive right, in consultation with Flores, to make educational and invasive
medical decisions. The court awarded Flores an expanded standard possession
order. In October 2018, the trial court signed a final divorce, and Flores appealed.
Inadequate Representation
In her sole issue on appeal, Flores argues that her constitutional rights were
violated because she was denied effective assistance of counsel during the
pendency of the divorce. Specifically, she challenges the district court’s decision to
appoint her joint managing conservator of her child but award Reyes the exclusive
right to designate the primary residence of the child. Flores argues that her counsel
did not attend any hearings between February 2018 to August 2018, despite being
properly noticed; did not notify her of the court dates; failed to negotiate with
Reyes; did not comply with the order to complete mediation, respond to
interrogatories, or produce documents; and did not prepare for trial. Flores
contends that her counsel’s conduct caused her to be nervous when she testified at
trial and resulted in two orders for her to pay Reyes’s attorney’s fees.
The United States Supreme Court has recognized that ineffective assistance
of counsel in the criminal context is a violation of the Sixth Amendment right to
counsel. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 686 (1984). However, it is
well established that the doctrine of ineffective assistance of counsel does not
3
extend to divorce cases. Blair v. McClinton, No. 01-11-00701-CV, 2013 WL
3354649, at *3 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] July 2, 2013, pet. denied) (mem.
op.); Chrisman v. Chrisman, 296 S.W.3d 706, 707 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2009, no
pet.).
Flores argues that this case involved important rights, such as her right to
decide the primary residence of her child. The Texas Supreme Court has
recognized that a parent has a constitutional right to effective counsel in parental-
rights termination cases. See In re M.S., 115 S.W.3d 534, 544 (Tex. 2003). This
case does not involve the termination of parental rights. Because this is a divorce
case and does not concern the termination of parental rights, the doctrine of
ineffective assistance of counsel does not apply to Flores’s complaints. See id.
We overrule Flores’s sole issue on appeal.
Conclusion
We affirm the trial court’s decree.
Peter Kelly
Justice
Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Kelly and Goodman.
4