TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-22-00599-CV

C. M., Appellant

v.

Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee

FROM THE 459TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

NO. D-1-FM-20-005059, THE HONORABLE MADELEINE CONNOR, JUDGE PRESIDING

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

C.M. appeals from the trial court’s order terminating his parental rights to his 

three children. See Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001. After a bench trial, the trial court rendered

judgment finding by clear and convincing evidence that two statutory grounds existed for 

terminating C.M.’s parental rights and that termination was in the children’s best interest. See id.

§ 161.001(b)(1), (E), (O), (b)(2).

Appellant’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 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 
2

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). Appellant’s counsel has certified to this Court 

that she has provided C.M. with a copy of the Anders brief and informed him of his 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 unless requested by this Court or as needed to respond to any pro se brief filed 

by appellant. To date, appellant 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). We have specifically reviewed the trial court’s

findings as to C.M. under part (E) of Family Code § 161.001(b)(1), and we have found no 

non-frivolous issues that could be raised on appeal with respect to that finding. See In re N.G., 

577 S.W.3d 230, 237 (Tex. 2019) (holding that “due process and due course of law requirements 

mandate that an appellate court detail its analysis for an appeal of termination of parental rights 

under section 161.001(b)(1)(D) or (E) of the Family Code”). After reviewing the record and the 

Anders brief, we find nothing in the record that would arguably support C.M.’s appeal. We 

agree with appellant’s counsel that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. Accordingly, we 

affirm the trial court’s order terminating the parental rights of C.M. We deny counsel’s motion 

to withdraw.1 

1 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, 27–28 (Tex. 2016) (per curiam). 
3

__________________________________________

Thomas J. Baker, Justice

Before Justices Baker, Triana, and Kelly

Affirmed

Filed: February 10, 2023

Accordingly, counsel’s obligations to C.M. have not yet been discharged. See id. If after 

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

file with the Texas Supreme Court “a petition for review that satisfies the standards for an 

Anders brief.” See id.