### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-16-00109- CV

J. A., Appellant

v. Texas Depart m ent of Fam ily and P rote ctive Service s, Appellee

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F TRAVIS CO UNTY, 126 TH JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. D-1 -F M- 14- 0048 82, H ONO RAB LE DARLENE BY RNE, JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

J .A. appe als from the tria l court’s fina l decr ee te rminating his pa renta l r ights to his child. The Texas Depa

rtment of Fa

mily and Protective Service s first contac ted J .A. afte r the child’s mother left the infant in J .A.’s car e sever al months afte r the child’s birth. On J uly 31, 2014, J .A. and the Depa rtment signe d a Safety Plan fo rbi dding the child’s mother to have acc ess to the child. Three day s later, on Aug ust 3, the child was found alone in J .A.’s home, strapped in a car seat, and soaked in urine . On August 13, the Depa rtment rec eived a

repor t that J .A. had be en ar

rested a fter a phy sical alter cation with the child’s mother at J .A.’s home. On Aug ust 27, the Depa rtment filed

a petition reque sting termination of J .A.’s pare ntal rig hts. The trial court enter ed temporar y order s including provisions tha

t J.A. was to succ essfully complete protec tive pare nting classes, complete

a psy cholog ical evaluation, submit to random drug testing, complete a drug and alcohol assessment,

an d n o tify the Depa

rtment within 24 hours of any chang e of addre ss, employ ment, or perso n sresiding in the home. At the perma nency hear ing on October 12, 2015, the Court was informed that J .A. had been arr ested ag ain as a result of a domestic violence incident with the child’s mother, had missed visits with the child, had not co m p leted thera py due to being incar cer ated, and had not provided a

cer tificate of completion of the pa

renting classes. A t tr ial on the merits on Fe bruar y 1, 2016, the cour

t found by

clea r and c onvincing evidenc e that J.A. failed to comply with provisions of the court’s order that established the actions nece ssary for him to obtain the return of the chil d who had been in the conser vatorship of th e De p ar t m en t for not less than nine months, Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001(b)( 1)(O) , and that termination of J .A.’s pare ntal rig hts was in the best interest of the child, id. § 161.001(b)( 2).

On appea l, J .A.’s attorney has filed a brief stating that afte r revie wing the rec ord, she believes that the appea l is frivolous. Counsel has prese nted a profe ssional evaluation of the rec ord 1 and explained why she believes there are no arguable g rounds for reve rsal. Counsel has repr esente d
to the Court that sh e p ro v i d ed a copy of the brief to J .A.; advised him of his rig ht to examine the appellate rec ord and file a pro se brief; persona lly provided him with a copy of the appellate rec ord; and notified him of his deadline for filing a pro se brief. See Taylor v. Texas Dep’ t of Protective & Regulatory Svcs. , 160 S.W .3d 641, 646-47 & n.4 (Tex. App.—Austin 2005, pet. denied) ; see also Kelly v. State , 436 S.W .3d 313, 319-21 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). J .A. has not filed a pro se brief or made contac t w ith this Court. We have conducte d our own revie w of the rec ord and we ag ree that

This and other Texas courts have held that it is appropr iat e i n a pare ntal termination 1 case to file a brief asser

ting that the appea l is frivolous. See Taylor v

. Texas Dep’ t of Protective & Regulatory Svcs. , 160 S.W .3d 641, 646 & n.4 (Tex. App.—Austin 2005, pet. denied) ; In re D.E.S. , 135 S.W .3d 326, 329 (Tex. App.—Houston [14t h Dist.] 2004, no pet.); In re K.D. , 127 S.W .3d 66, 67 (Tex. App.—Houston [1s t Dist.] 2003, no pet.). 2the appea l is frivolous. We there fore aff irm the trial court’s final decr ee. Fur ther, in acc ordanc e with the Texas Supreme Court’s rec ent decision, we deny counsel’s motion to withdraw. In re P.M. , No. 15-0171, 2016 Te x . L EXI S 236, at *7 (Tex. Apr. 1, 2016). 2

__________________________________________ David Pury ear , J ustice Be fore J ustices Pury ear , Goodwin, and F ield Affir med Filed: June 3, 2016

I n P.M. , the Texas Supreme Court held that the rig ht to counsel in s u i t s s ee k i ng the 2 termination of pare ntal rig hts e x tends to “ all proce eding s in [the Texas Supreme Court] , including the filing of a petition for revie w.” No. 15-0171, 2016 Tex. L EXI S 236, at *7 (Tex. Apr. 1, 2016). A c c o r d in g ly , c o u

n s e l’ s o b li g a

ti o n to J. A

. h a s n o t ye t b e e n d is c h a r g e d

. S e e id

. I f J. A

. , a f

te r c o n s u lt in g with counsel, desires to file a petition for revie w, counsel should timely file with the Texas Supreme Court “a pe tition for reviewthat satisfies the standa rds for a n Anders brief.” See id. at *8. 3