quoted in Section II, supra, the only questions to be answered were whether the parent-child relationships should be terminated. 73 . TexR.App. P. 44.1(a). 74 . The first order, a status hearing order, was signed on December 23, 1997. The next three orders, all permanency hear y Servs., 924 S.W.2d 756, 762 (Tex.App.-Austin 1996, writ denied) (Sixth Amendment); In re J.F., 888 S.W.2d 140, 143 (Tex.App.-Tyler 1994, no writ) (Sixth Amendment); Krasniqi v. Dallas County Child Protective Servs. Unit of Tex. Dep't of Human Servs., 809 S.W.2d 927, 931 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1991, writ denied) (Due process and equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment); Posner v. Dallas County Child Welfare Unit of the Tex. Dep’t of Human Servs., 784 S.W.2d 585, 588 (Tex.App.-Eastland 1990, writ denied) (<HOLDING>); Howell v. Dallas County Child Welfare Unit,
holding that the constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel does not extend to parental termination proceedings without identifying any specific constitutional provision holding that in parental termination proceedings the parent is entitled to effective assistance of counsel recognizing that the statutory right to counsel in parental termination cases requires that the appointed counsel provide effective assistance holding that a parents statutory right to counsel in termination proceedings guarantees the right to effective counsel recognizing constitutional right to effective counsel