### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-04-00184- CV

Do vie M at th e ws, A ppe lla nt

v. Texas Depart m ent of Pr otec tive and Regulatory Servic es, Appellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF BELL CO UNTY, 146TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 172,91 4-B , HO NORAB LE RICK M ORRI S, JUDGE PRESI DING

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N This is an appea l from a judg ment terminatingthe par ental rig hts of Dovie Matthew s to her two da

ug hters, L .M. and A.W. The Te x as De partment of Prote ctive and Re g ulatory Service s
re mov e d th e c hil dr e n f

ro m Matth e ws ’s c us tod

y on De c e mbe r 4 , 1 99 8, a ft e r A .W. su sta ine d mu lti ple fra cture s to her lef

t leg that wer e alleg ed to ha ve been cause d either by

Matthews or he r boy friend. Th e De pa rtme nt t he re a ft e r e nte re d into a

n ag re e d ord e r wit

h M a tth e ws re qu ir inghe r t o me e t c e rt a in conditions reg ardingher f itness as a pa

rent a nd her home environment in orde r to reg ain custody of L .M . a nd A. W . T he De pa

rtme nt u lti mate ly

c on c lud e d th a t Matth e ws wa s unw ill ingor un a ble to comply with these conditions a

nd soug ht to terminate Matthews’ s pare ntal rig hts. I n Marc h 2004, the dis tr ic t c ourt

te rm inate d M a tth e ws ’s pa re nta l r ig hts
.“ An de rs brief” ref

ers to a brief filed in acc ordanc e with An de rs v . Ca lif or nia , 386 U.S. 738, 1 741-44 (1967)
. In An de rs , th e Un ite d St a te s Su preme Co urt held th a t a

c ourt -a pp ointe d d e fe ns e a tto rn e y in a c ri min a l c a se wh o d e te rm ine s, a ft e r fu lly e xami nin g the re c or d, that an a pp e a l is wh oll y fr ivo lou s and

wi tho ut me ri t mus t so a dv ise the a pp e llate c ourt and the n s e t f or th a ny po te nti a l po int s of error and applicable law that might arguably support the appe llant’s position. S ever al of our sister c ourt s o f a

pp e a ls h ave a c kn ow le dg e d th a t An de rs briefs ma y be appr opriate in pa

renta l termination case s. See I

n re D.E.S. , 13 5 S.W. 3d 32 6, 32 9 (T e x. Ap p. —H ou sto n [14t h D ist .] 20 04 , n o p e t.) ; In re K.D. , 127 S.W. 3d 66 , 67 (T e x. Ap p. —H ou sto n [1st Dis t.] 200 3, no pe t.) ; Porter v. Tex as Dep’t of Pr ote c tiv e &Re

gu lator ySe rv s. , 105 S.W .3d 52, 56 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2003, no pet.); In re K.M. , 9 8 S. W.3 d 7 74 , 7 77 (T e x. Ap p. —F or t Wor th 20 03 , no pe t.) ; I

n r e E

. L

. Y. , 69 S.W .3d 838, 84 1 ( Te x. Ap p. —Wa c o 2 00 2, no pe t.) ; In reA. W .T. , 61 S.W .3d 632, 634 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2001, no pet.). L ikewise, this Court has consider ed the An de rs pr o c e d u r e i n unp ub lis he d te rm inatio n c a se s. Se e Pr e witt

v . Te x as De p’ t of Pr ote c tiv e & Re

gu lator ySe rv s. , No. 03-01-00648- CV, 2002 Tex. App. L EX I S 77 65 (T e x. Ap p. —Aus tin Oc t. 31 , 20 02 , no pe t.) (n ot d e signate d f or pu bli c a tio n) ; Behrends v . Te x as De p’ t of Pr ot ect iv e &Re

gu lator ySe rv s. , N o . 0 3

- 0 1

- 0 0 6 1 4

- C V , 2 0 0 2 T e x . Ap p . LE X IS 4463 (Tex. App.—Austin J une 21, 2002, no pet.) (not desig nated f or publication). Although the Texas Supreme Court has not y et square ly addre ssed this issue, the r ationales of so me of its re c e nt d e c isi on s su g g e st t hat An de rs briefs a

re pe rmissible in parental ter mination case s. I n In re M

.S. , 115 S.W .3d 534, 544 (Tex
. 2 0 0 3 ), t h e court held that the Six th Amendment rig ht to counsel applied in pare ntal termination ca ses. In In re D.A .S. , 9 7 3 S. W. 2 d 2 9 6 , 2 9 9 ( T e x. 1998), the c ourt extended An de rs to j uv e nil e de lin qu e nc y pr oc e e din g s o n th e ba sis that th e ir qu a sicriminal nature implicated the Six th Amendment rig ht to counsel. The r ationale of D.A.S.— t h at An de rs a pp lie d to a

pp ointe d c ouns e l in

no n- c ri min a l c on te xts w he re the S ix th Am endme nt i s implic a te d—

wo uld se e min g ly

a lso e xten d to te rm inatio n c a se s, a s M.S. h e l d th a t the Sixth Am e ndme nt a

pp lie s in tho se pr oc e e din g s. 2 On appe al, Matthews’ s appointed counse l filed an An de rs brief stating that, after a th oro ugh rev ie w o f t

he re c or d, he de te rm ine d th a t th is a pp e a l is fr ivo lou s. Th e br ie f p re se nts a 1 pr of e ssi on a l e va luatio n o f t

he re c or d d e mon str a tin g why the re are no argua

ble g ro un ds fo r r e ve rs a l. A copy of this brief w as deliver ed to Matthews, who w as notified of he r rig ht to seek other c ounsel or file a pro se brief. She ha s done neither . The De partment ha s not filed an appe llee’s br ief.3 We hav e re viewed the rec ord, and a g ree with counsel’s a ssessment that the appe al is f rivolous and without merit. We acc ording ly aff irm the trial cour

t’s judgme nt and g rant c ounsel’s motion to wit hdraw
.

Bob Pembe rton, J ustice Be fore Chief J ustice L aw, Justi ces B . A. Smith and Pemberton Affir med Filed: F ebrua

ry 17, 2005