Discretionary appointment of counsel

According to Tex. Fam. Code 107.021:

(a) In a suit in which the best interests of a child are at issue, other than a suit filed by a governmental entity requesting termination of the parent-child relationship or appointment of the entity as conservator of the child, the court may appoint one of the following:
(1) an amicus attorney;
(2) an attorney ad litem; or
(3) a guardian ad litem.

The role of the amicus attorney is to advocate for the child’s best interests, Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 107.005(a), but with the child’s consent, the attorney shall “ensure the child’s expressed objectives of representation are known to the court”. Id. at (b). Instead of representing the child or any party then, the amicus attorney’s responsibility is to assist the court. See In re McDaniel, 408 S.W.3d 389, 399 n.2 (Tex. Ct. App. 2011). Accordingly, because the attorney does not serve in a client-directed role, the appointment of counsel is classified as “qualified” in addition to “discretionary.”

Scope of representation

An attorney appointed for a child under the statute only has those “powers and duties expressly authorized by the Family Code.” See In the Interest of G.L.W., No. 05-23-00327-CV, 2024 WL 3755278, at *4-5 (Tex. Ct. App. Aug. 12, 2024) (although the parties’ Mediated Settlement Agreement reflected that the child’s amicus attorney had the responsibility to represent the child in post-judgment matters, the MSA provisions were void since the Agreement was found not statutorily compliant) (relying on In re Collins, 242 S.W.3d 837, 847-48 [Tex. Ct. App. 2007]) (“reject[ing] the grandparents’ argument that the trial court had inherent authority to confer powers on the amicus attorney”).