TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-24-00370-CV

M. C., Appellant

v.

Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee

FROM THE 98TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

NO. D-1-FM-21-004910, THE HONORABLE AURORA MARTINEZ-JONES, JUDGE PRESIDING

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

M.C. (“Mother”) appeals from the trial court’s order terminating her parental 

rights to her daughter S.T.1 After a bench trial, the trial court rendered judgment finding by clear 

and convincing evidence that Mother failed to comply with the provisions of a court order 

establishing the actions necessary for her to obtain custody of S.T. again and that termination 

was in S.T.’s best interests. See Tex. Fam. Code § 161.002(b)(1)(O), (b)(2).

Mother’s court-appointed counsel has filed a brief concluding that the appeal is 

frivolous and without merit. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967); In re P.M., 

520 S.W.3d 24, 27 & n.10 (Tex. 2016) (per curiam) (approving use of Anders procedure in 

appeals from termination of parental rights because it “strikes an important balance between the 

1 For S.T.’s privacy, we will refer to her by her initials and to her family members by 

their relationships to S.T. See Tex. R. App. P. 9.8. The parental rights of S.T.’s father also were 

terminated, but he is not a party to this appeal.
2

defendant’s constitutional right to counsel on appeal and counsel’s obligation not to prosecute 

frivolous appeals” (citations omitted)). The brief meets the requirements of Anders by 

presenting a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating why there are no arguable 

grounds to be advanced on appeal. See 386 U.S. at 744; Taylor v. Texas Dep’t of Protective & 

Regulatory Servs., 160 S.W.3d 641, 646-47 (Tex. App.—Austin 2005, pet. denied) (applying 

Anders procedure in parental-termination case). Mother’s counsel has certified to this Court that 

he has provided Mother with a copy of the Anders brief and informed Mother of her right to 

receive a copy of the entire appellate record and file a pro se brief. The Department of Family 

and Protective Services has filed a response to the Anders brief, waiving its right to file an 

appellee’s brief. To date, Mother has not filed a pro se brief.

We have conducted a full examination of all of the proceedings to determine 

whether the appeal is wholly frivolous, as we must when presented with an Anders brief. See 

Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988). After reviewing the record and the Anders brief, we 

find nothing in the record that would arguably support Mother’s appeal. We agree with Mother’s

counsel that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s 

order terminating Mother’s parental rights.2

2 The Texas Supreme Court has held that the right to counsel in suits seeking termination 

of parental rights extends to “all proceedings [in the Texas Supreme Court], including the filing 

of a petition for review.” In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 (Tex. 2016) (per curiam). Accordingly, 

counsel’s obligations to Mother have not yet been discharged. See id. If after consulting 

with counsel Mother desires to file a petition for review, her counsel should timely file with 

the Texas Supreme Court “a petition for review that satisfies the standards for an Anders brief.” 

See id. at 28.
3

__________________________________________

Thomas J. Baker, Justice

Before Justices Baker, Smith, and Theofanis

Affirmed

Filed: September 17, 2024