Court Opinion

ID: 9397341
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-25 08:11:53.089829+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:23.277730
License: Public Domain

In The
                                   Court of Appeals
                          Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

                                           No. 07-23-00074-CV
                                           No. 07-23-00076-CV

                       IN THE INTEREST OF T.R. AND T.R., CHILDREN
                            IN THE INTEREST OF T.R., A CHILD

                            On Appeal from the 108th District Court
                                    Potter County, Texas
        Trial Court Nos. 96,552-E-FM & 87,890-E-FM, Honorable Carry Baker, Presiding

                                             May 19, 2023
                                  MEMORANDUM OPINION
                     Before QUINN, C.J., and PARKER and DOSS, JJ.
       This is an appeal from a final order terminating the parental relationship between

biological mother DH and three of her children, TR 2007, TR 2009, and TR 2012. 1 The

trial court based termination on mother’s voluntary execution of an irrevocable affidavit of

relinquishment. Her appointed counsel filed an Anders2 brief and moved to withdraw.

We affirm.

        1 Because the children have the same initials, we differentiate between them by adding their

respective year of birth to those initials.

       2   Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967).
       Again, the trial court terminated mother’s rights based on her affidavits of voluntary

relinquishment of parental rights. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 161.001(b)(1)(K). It also

found that such termination was in the best interests of the children. See TEX. FAM. CODE

ANN. § 161.001(b)(2).

       Pursuant to Anders, mother’s court-appointed appellate counsel filed a brief.

Therein, he explained that, after conducting a diligent review of the record and law, no

arguable issue existed warranting the appeal. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407

n.9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 n.3

(Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (en banc); In re A.W.T., 61 S.W.3d 87, 88 (Tex. App.—Amarillo

2001, no pet.) (procedures set forth in Anders v. California are applicable to appeals of

orders terminating parental rights). By letter, we informed mother of her right to file a pro

se response to her counsel’s Anders brief and motion to withdraw. See In re Schulman,

252 S.W.3d at 409.

       Mother filed a response and asserted therein that she felt pressured to sign the

affidavits of relinquishment. A “direct or collateral attack on an order terminating parental

rights based on an unrevoked affidavit of relinquishment of parental rights or affidavit of

waiver of interest in a child is limited to issues relating to fraud, duress, or coercion in the

execution of the affidavit.” In re N.A.O., No. 07-21-00247-CV, 2022 Tex. App. LEXIS

1203, at *3-5 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Feb. 18, 2022, no pet.) (mem. op.); TEX. FAM. CODE

ANN. § 161.211(c). Appellate counsel addressed her comment about feeling pressured

and explained why no competent evidence of record supported reversal.                  Feeling

“pressure” alone or even if coupled with emotional stress does not equate fraud, duress,

or coercion. In re C.D., No. 12-21-00045-CV, 2021 Tex. App. LEXIS 7617, at *12 (Tex.
                                          2
App.—Tyler Sept. 15, 2021, pet. denied) (mem. op.). And, our review of the record

uncovered no evidence suggesting fraud, duress, or coercion. Nor did it reveal some

other arguable ground supporting an appeal. See In re E.J.H., No. 07-22-00074-CV,

2022 Tex. App. LEXIS 4465, at *3 (Tex. App.—Amarillo June 29, 2022, no pet.) (mem.

op.) (discussing the obligation of the court to conduct its own search for arguable issues).

        Finding no arguable issue for review, we affirm the trial court’s judgment

terminating mother’s parental rights to TR 2007, TR 2009, and TR 2012 but take no action

on the motion to withdraw. 3

                                                                     Brian Quinn
                                                                     Chief Justice

        3 An Anders motion to withdraw filed in the court of appeals, in the absence of additional grounds
for withdrawal, may be premature. In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 (Tex. 2016) (per curiam). Courts have a
duty to see that withdrawal of counsel will not result in prejudice to the client. Id. In light of In re P.M., we
call counsel's attention to the continuing duty of representation through the exhaustion of proceedings,
which may include the filing of a petition for review in the Texas Supreme Court.
                                                       3