NO. 12-17-00248-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

IN THE INTEREST OF H.R.,

A CHILD

§

§

§

APPEAL FROM THE 411TH 

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

TRINITY COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

S.M. appeals the termination of her parental rights. S.M.’s counsel filed a brief in 

compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967), 

and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). We affirm.

BACKGROUND

S.M. is the mother, and J.R.1is the father of H.R. On November 17, 2015, the 

Department of Family and Protective Services (the Department) filed an original petition for 

protection of H.R., for conservatorship, and for termination of S.M.’s and J.R.’s parental rights. 

The Department was appointed temporary managing conservator of the child, and S.M. and J.R. 

were granted limited access to and possession of the child. 

At the conclusion of the trial on the merits, the jury found, by clear and convincing 

evidence, that S.M.’s parental rights should be terminated. Based on the jury’s findings, the trial 

court found, by clear and convincing evidence, that S.M. had engaged in one or more of the acts 

or omissions necessary to support termination of her parental rights under subsections (D), (E), 

 

1 At the conclusion of the trial, the jury found that J.R.’s parental rights should be terminated. Based on the 

jury’s findings, the trial court found, by clear and convincing evidence, that J.R. had engaged in one or more of the 

acts or omissions necessary to support termination of his parental rights under subsections (D), (E), (N) and (O) of 

Texas Family Code section 161.001(b)(1). The trial court also found that termination of the parent-child 

relationship between J.R. and H.R. is in the child’s best interest. Based on these findings, the trial court ordered that 

the parent-child relationship between J.R. and H.R. be terminated. J.R. is not a party to this appeal.
2

(N) and (O) of Texas Family Code section 161.001(b)(1). The trial court also found that 

termination of the parent-child relationship between S.M. and H.R. is in the child’s best interest. 

Based on these findings, the trial court ordered that the parent-child relationship between S.M. 

and H.R. be terminated. This appeal followed.

ANALYSIS PURSUANT TO ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA

S.M.’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders, stating that counsel has diligently 

reviewed the appellate record and is of the opinion that the record reflects no reversible error and 

that there is no error upon which an appeal can be predicated. This court has previously held that 

Anders procedures apply in parental rights termination cases when the Department has moved 

for termination. See In re K.S.M., 61 S.W.3d 632, 634 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2001, no pet.). In 

compliance with Anders, counsel’s brief presents a professional evaluation of the record 

demonstrating why there are no reversible grounds on appeal, and referencing any grounds that 

might arguably support the appeal. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; Mays v. 

State, 904 S.W.2d 920, 922-23 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1995, no pet.). 

In our duties as a reviewing court, we must conduct an independent evaluation of the 

record to determine whether counsel is correct in determining that the appeal is frivolous. See

Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Mays, 904 S.W.2d at 923. We 

have carefully reviewed the appellate record and counsel’s brief. We find nothing in the record 

that might arguably support the appeal.2 See Taylor v. Tex. Dep’t of Protective & Regulatory 

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

DISPOSITION

We agree with S.M.’s counsel that the appeal is wholly frivolous. In accordance with In 

re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 (Tex. 2016), counsel for S.M. has not moved to withdraw. 

Accordingly, counsel’s obligation to S.M. has not yet been discharged. See id. If S.M., after 

consulting with counsel, desires to file a petition for review, counsel should timely file with the 

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

 

2 Counsel for S.M. certified that she provided her with a copy of her brief and informed her that she had the 

right to file her own brief. S.M. was given time to file her own brief, but the time for filing such brief has expired 

and we have received no pro se brief.
3

id. at 27-28; see also A.C. v. Tex. Dep’t of Family & Protective Servs., No. 03-16-00543-CV, 

2016 WL 5874880, at *1 n.2 (Tex. App.—Austin Oct. 5, 2016, no pet.) (mem. op.).

Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2.

Opinion delivered January 3, 2018.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

(PUBLISH)
COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

JANUARY 3, 2017

NO. 12-17-00248-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF H.R., A CHILD

Appeal from the 411th District Court 

of Trinity County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 22098)

THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and brief filed 

herein, and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that there was no error in the 

judgment.

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the judgment 

of the court below be in all things affirmed, and that this decision be certified to the court 

below for observance.

By per curiam opinion.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.