TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-24-00329-CV

C. G., Appellant

v.

Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee

FROM THE 274TH DISTRICT COURT OF COMAL COUNTY

NO. C2023-0931C, THE HONORABLE MELISSA MCCLENAHAN, JUDGE PRESIDING

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

C.G. (“Father”) appeals from the trial court’s order terminating his parental rights 

to his son C.G., Jr., and his daughter S.G.1 After a bench trial, the trial court rendered judgment 

finding by clear and convincing evidence that several statutory grounds existed for terminating 

Father’s parental rights and that termination was in the children’s best interest. See Tex. Fam. 

Code § 161.001(b)(1) (D), (E), (O), (b)(2).

Father’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 the children’s privacy, we will refer to them by their initials and to their family 

members by their relationships to the children. See Tex. R. App. P. 9.8. The parental rights of 

the children’s mother also were terminated after she entered into a mediated settlement 

agreement.
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). Father’s counsel has certified to this Court that 

he has provided Father with a copy of the Anders brief and informed Father 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. To date, Father 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 

endangerment findings as to Father under subsection 161.001(b)(1) of the Family Code, and we 

have found no non-frivolous issues that could be raised on appeal with respect to those findings.

See In re N.G., 577 S.W.3d 230, 237 (Tex. 2019) (explaining due process and due course of law 

considerations pertaining to terminations under section 161.001(b)(1)(D) or (E) of Family Code). 

After reviewing the record and the Anders brief, we find nothing in the record that would 

arguably support Father’s appeal. We agree with Father’s counsel that the appeal is frivolous 

and without merit. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s order terminating Father’s parental 

rights. We deny counsel’s motion to withdraw.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 
3

__________________________________________

Thomas J. Baker, Justice

Before Justices Baker, Triana, and Kelly

Affirmed

Filed: July 30, 2024

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

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

with counsel Father 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. at 28.