NO. 12-16-00178-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

IN THE INTEREST OF

E.H. AND D.S.,

CHILDREN

§

§

§

APPEAL FROM THE

COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2

ANGELINA COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

T.S. and D.S. appeal the termination of their parental rights. The parents’ 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

T.S. is the mother and D.S.1is the father of E.H., born July 29, 2013, and D.S.1, born 

October 11, 2014.2 On March 19, 2015, the Department of Family and Protective Services (the 

Department) filed an original petition for protection of the children, for conservatorship, and for 

termination of T.S.’s and D.S.’s parental rights. The Department was appointed temporary 

managing conservator of the children, and T.S. was appointed temporary possessory conservator 

with limited rights and duties. 

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

evidence, that T.S. had engaged in one or more of the acts or omissions necessary to support 

termination of her parental rights under subsections (D), (E), (N), and (O) of Texas Family Code 

 

1 The initials of the father and his youngest child are the same. Therefore, we will refer to the father as D.S.

and to his youngest child as D.S.1.

2

J.L.S. is the presumed father of the children because he was married to their mother, T.S., when the children 

were born. However, on April 8, 2016, he signed an affidavit of voluntary relinquishment of parental rights to the 

children. The trial court ordered that the parent-child relationship between J.L.S. and the children be terminated.
2

Section 161.001(b)(1). The trial court also found that termination of the parent-child relationship 

between T.S. and the children is in the children’s best interest. Based on these findings, the trial 

court ordered that the parent-child relationship between T.S. and the children be terminated. 

The trial court found that D.S. is, and adjudicated him to be, the father of E.H. and D.S.1. 

Then, the trial court found, by clear and convincing evidence, that D.S. had engaged in one or 

more of the acts or omissions necessary to support termination of his parental rights under 

subsections (D) and (E) of Texas Family Code Section 161.001(b)(1). The trial court also found 

that termination of the parent-child relationship between D.S. and the children is in the children’s 

best interest. Based on these findings, the trial court ordered that the parent-child relationship 

between D.S. and the children be terminated. This appeal followed.

ANALYSIS PURSUANT TO ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA

T.S. and D.S.’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders, stating that he 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.3 See Taylor v. Tex. Dep’t of Protective & Regulatory 

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

 

3 Counsel for T.S. and D.S. certified that he provided them with a copy of his brief and informed them that 

they had the right to file their own briefs. T.S. and D.S. were given time to file their own briefs, but the time for filing 

such briefs has expired and we have received no pro se briefs.
3

DISPOSITION

We agree with T.S. and D.S.’s counsel that the appeal is wholly frivolous. In accordance 

with In re P.M., No. 15-0171, 2016 WL 1274748, at *3 (Tex. Apr. 1, 2016), counsel has not 

moved to withdraw. In In re P.M., the Texas Supreme Court held that the right to counsel in suits 

seeking the termination of parental rights extends to “all proceedings in [the Texas Supreme 

Court], including the filing of a petition for review.” Id. at *3. Accordingly, counsel’s obligation 

to T.S. and D.S. has not yet been discharged. See id. If T.S. and D.S., 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 id.; 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. h.). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2.

Opinion delivered October 31, 2016.

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

(PUBLISH)
COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

OCTOBER 31, 2016

NO. 12-16-00178-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF E.H. AND D.S., CHILDREN

Appeal from the County Court at Law No 2 

of Angelina County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. CV-00202-15-03)

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.