In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-19-00091-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF J.C., JR., A CHILD

On Appeal from the County Court at Law

Lamar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 87472

Before Morriss, C.J., Burgess and Stevens, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Based on the verdict of a Hunt County jury, the trial court terminated the parental rights of 

J.C., Sr., to his child, J.C., Jr. J.C., Sr., is represented on appeal by court-appointed counsel, who 

has filed a brief in accordance with the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). 

His court-appointed counsel has concluded, after a review of the record, that this appeal is frivolous 

and without merit. Because we agree, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. However, in 

consideration of appointed counsel’s continuing obligation to represent J.C., Sr., for purposes of 

any further appellate review, we deny counsel’s motion to withdraw.

The procedures set forth in Anders are applicable to an appeal from a trial court’s order 

terminating parental rights when an appellant’s appointed appellate counsel concludes that there 

are no nonfrivolous issues to assert on appeal. See In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 (Tex. 2016)

(citing In re D.A.S., 973 S.W.2d 296, 297 n.10 (Tex. 1998)); In re P.M.H., No. 06-10-00008-CV, 

2010 WL 1794390, at *1 (Tex. App.—Texarkana May 6, 2010, no pet.) (mem. op.). The Anders

brief filed by J.C., Sr.’s, counsel presents an evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are 

no arguable grounds for reversal. Counsel has established that he provided J.C., Sr., with a copy 

of his brief, provided him with a copy of the appellate record, and notified him of his right to file 

a pro se response. By letter dated November 25, 2019, this Court informed J.C., Sr., that any pro se 

response was due on or before December 16, 2019. On December 30, 2019, this Court further 

informed J.C., Sr., that the case would be set for submission on the briefs on January 21, 2020. 

We have received neither a pro se response nor a motion for extension of time to file a pro se 

response.
3

Court-appointed counsel’s brief meets the requirements of Anders by providing an

evaluation of the record and stating why there are no arguable grounds for reversal on appeal. See

Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. Having thoroughly reviewed the record and counsel’s brief, we agree 

with counsel’s assessment that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the 

record that could arguably support the appeal. See id. (emphasizing that reviewing court, not 

counsel, determines, after full examination of proceedings, whether the appeal is wholly frivolous). 

Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s final order terminating J.C., Sr.’s, parental rights to J.C., 

Jr.

We deny counsel’s motion to withdraw, however. Once counsel is appointed by the trial 

court, he may be permitted to withdraw only for good cause. P.M., 520 S.W.3d at 27. In cases

where the Department of Family & Protective Services seeks termination of the parent-child 

relationship, “counsel’s belief that the client has no grounds to seek further review from the court 

of appeals’ decision” is not “good cause” sufficient to justify counsel’s withdrawal. Id. Instead, 

an attorney’s duty to his or her client extends through the exhaustion or waiver of all appeals in 

relation to the order. Id. If, after consultation, J.C., Sr., wishes to pursue review by the Supreme 

Court of Texas, counsel may satisfy his obligation to represent him on appeal “by filing a petition 

for review that satisfies the standards for an Anders brief.” Id. at 28.
4

We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Josh R. Morriss, III

Chief Justice

Date Submitted: January 21, 2020

Date Decided: January 29, 2020