AFFIRMED and Opinion Filed February 16, 2024 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-23-00460-CV 

IN THE INTEREST OF Z.D.R.R. AND Z.U.C., CHILDREN 

On Appeal from the County Court 

Kaufman County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 110045-CC 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Chief Justice Burns, Justice Molberg, and Justice Goldstein 

Opinion by Chief Justice Burns 

Mother brought this accelerated appeal from the trial court’s modification 

order in a suit filed by the Department of Family Services (DFPS) for 

conservatorship and for termination of Mother’s parental rights. Following a trial, 

the jury determined that each of the children’s fathers should be their respective 

child’s sole managing conservator, and the trial court signed an order limiting 

Mother’s periods of possession. Mother’s court-appointed counsel filed a notice of 

appeal on Mother’s behalf and has since filed a motion to withdraw along with a 

brief supporting that motion, stating that in her professional opinion the appeal is 
 –2– 

without merit and that there are no arguable grounds for reversal. See Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). 

Anders procedures are appropriate in an appeal from a trial court’s final order 

in a suit brought by DFPS for the protection of a child, for conservatorship, or for 

parental-rights termination, including those in which the parent’s rights are not 

ultimately terminated or DFPS does not become the child’s conservator. See In the 

Interest of J.C., No. 05-22-00043-CV, 2022 WL 2582546, at *2 (Tex. App—Dallas 

July 8, 2022, no pet.) (Anders procedures apply in termination or parental rights 

cases, including those in which termination is sought but not granted); In the Interest 

of E.L.W., 01-17-00546-CV, 2017 WL 5712545, at * 1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st 

Dist.] Nov. 28, 2017, no pet.) (same). An attorney has an ethical obligation to refuse 

to prosecute a frivolous appeal. In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 2008). If an appointed attorney finds a case to be wholly frivolous, his 

obligation to his client is to seek leave to withdraw. Id. Counsel’s obligation to the 

appellate court is to assure it, through an Anders brief, that, after a complete review 

of the record, the request to withdraw is well-founded. Id. 

Here, Mother’s counsel provided Mother with a copy of the Anders brief and 

advised Mother of her right to examine the record and file her own response. This 

Court separately provided Mother with a copy of the brief and notified her of her 

right to examine the record and file a response. Mother has not responded. 
 –3– 

In her brief, Mother’s counsel demonstrated that she reviewed the record and 

concluded the appeal was without merit and frivolous. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. 

She states that in her professional opinion no arguable grounds for reversal exist and 

that any appeal would therefore lack merit. See id. Counsel’s brief meets the 

minimum Anders requirements by presenting a professional evaluation of the record 

and stating why there are no arguable grounds for reversal on appeal. See id.;

Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409 n.23. We have independently reviewed the record and 

counsel’s brief and we agree the appeal is frivolous and without merit. 

Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s modification order. 

230460F.P05 

 

/Robert D. Burns, III/

ROBERT D. BURNS, III 

CHIEF JUSTICE 
 –4– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

IN THE INTEREST OF Z.D.R.R. 

AND Z.U.C., CHILDREN 

No. 05-23-00460-CV 

 On Appeal from the County Court, 

Kaufman County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 110045-CC. 

Opinion delivered by Chief Justice 

Burns. Justices Molberg and 

Goldstein participating. 

 In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s 

modification order is AFFIRMED. 

Judgment entered February 16, 2024