NO. 12-22-00184-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

IN THE INTEREST OF

T.W.M., III,

A CHILD

§

§

§

APPEAL FROM THE 402ND 

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

WOOD COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

R.B. appeals the termination of her parental rights. R.B.’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.3d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). We affirm.

BACKGROUND

R.B. is the mother of T.W.M., III, and T.W.M., Jr. is the child’s father.1 On September 29, 

2021, the Department of Family and Protective Services (the Department) filed an original petition 

for protection of a child, for conservatorship, and for termination of the parental rights of R.B. and 

T.W.M., Jr. The Department was appointed temporary managing conservator of T.W.M., III, and 

the parents were allowed limited access to, and possession of, T.W.M., III.

The evidence at trial showed that R.B. used methamphetamine during her pregnancy with 

T.W.M., III, and she tested positive for methamphetamine when the child was born. R.B. did not 

complete any of the services required by the family plan of service, as ordered by the trial court, 

and she was incarcerated at the time of trial. The child is currently placed with a paternal relative 

who wishes to adopt him, and he is doing well in that placement.

1 T.W.M., Jr. is not a party to this appeal. 
2

At the conclusion of the trial, the trial court found, by clear and convincing evidence, that 

R.B. knowingly placed or allowed the child to remain in conditions that endangered his physical 

or emotional wellbeing, knowingly engaged in conduct that endangered the child’s physical or 

emotional wellbeing, constructively abandoned the child, and failed to comply with the provisions 

of a court order that specifically established the actions necessary for her to obtain the return of 

the child, and that termination of R.B.’s parental rights is in T.W.M, III’s best interest. See TEX.

FAM. CODE ANN. §§ 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), (N), (O) (West 2022). Based on these findings, the 

trial court ordered that the parent-child relationship between R.B. and T.W.M, III be terminated.

This appeal followed.

ANALYSIS PURSUANT TO ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA

R.B.’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders, stating that he 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.).

As a reviewing court, we must conduct an independent evaluation of the record to 

determine whether counsel is correct in concluding 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).

2 Counsel for R.B. certified that he provided R.B. with a copy of the brief and informed her that she had the 

right to file her own brief and took concrete measures to facilitate her review of the record. See Kelly v. State, 436 

S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In the Matter of C.F., No. 03-18-00008-CV, 2018 WL 2750007, at *1 

(Tex. App.—Austin June 8, 2018, no pet.) (mem. op.). R.B. was given the time to file her own brief, but the time for 

filing such a brief has expired, and we have not received a pro se brief.
3

DISPOSITION

We agree with R.B.’s counsel that the appeal is wholly frivolous.3 Accordingly, we affirm

the trial court’s judgment. See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2.

Opinion delivered September 30, 2022. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

3 After filing an Anders brief, R.B.’s attorney filed a motion to withdraw due to his acceptance of new 

employment, which created a conflict of interest. We remanded the case to the trial court, and the trial court permitted 

counsel to withdraw and appointed new appellate counsel for R.B. R.B.’s new appellate counsel has not filed a motion 

to withdraw. However, even if her counsel had filed a motion to withdraw, we would not grant such a motion because 

counsel’s obligations to R.B. have not yet been discharged. See In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 (Tex. 2016) (holding 

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.”). If R.B., 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.” Id.; see 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.).
COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

SEPTEMBER 30, 2022

NO. 12-22-00184-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF T.W.M., III, A CHILD

Appeal from the 402nd District Court

of Wood County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 2021-332)

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 the decision be certified to the court below for 

observance.

By per curiam opinion.

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