Court Opinion

ID: 9391382
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-02 11:09:11.629475+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:41.598829
License: Public Domain

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

                                      NO. 03-22-00802-CV

                                M. C., Sr. and D. G., Appellants

                                                 v.

               Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee

               FROM THE 200TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY
   NO. D-1-FM-21-003020, THE HONORABLE LORA J. LIVINGSTON, JUDGE PRESIDING

                            MEMORANDUM OPINION

               M.C. (“Father”) and D.G. (“Mother”) appeal from the trial court’s order

terminating their parental rights to their son M.E.C.1 See Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001. After

a jury trial, the trial court rendered judgment finding by clear and convincing evidence that

several statutory grounds existed for terminating Mother’s and Father’s parental rights and that

termination was in M.E.C.’s best interest. See id. § 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), (b)(2).

               Mother’s court-appointed counsel and Father’s court-appointed counsel have each

filed a brief concluding that Mother’s and Father’s appeals are 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 defendant’s constitutional right

       1
          For the child’s privacy, we will refer to him by his initials and to his family members by
their relationships to him. See Tex. R. App. P. 9.8.
to counsel on appeal and counsel’s obligation not to prosecute frivolous appeals” (citations

omitted)). The briefs meet 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). Mother’s counsel has certified to this Court that she has provided Mother with a copy of

the Anders brief and informed her of her right to receive a copy of the entire appellate record and

file a pro se brief. Similarly, Father’s counsel has certified that she has provided Father with a

copy of the brief and a letter explaining his right to file a pro se brief but also certified that she

provided Father with a copy of the clerk’s and reporter’s records. The Department of Family and

Protective Services has filed responses to the Anders briefs, waiving its right to file appellee’s

briefs. To date, neither Mother nor Father has 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 reviewed the endangerment findings as to

Mother and 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 subsection 161.001(b)(1)(D) or (E) of Family Code). After

reviewing the record and the Anders briefs, we find nothing in the record that would arguably

support either parent’s appeal. We agree with both appointed counsel that the appeals are

frivolous and without merit. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s order terminating Mother’s

                                                  2
and Father’s parental rights. Mother’s counsel has also filed a motion to withdraw, which

we deny.2

                                             __________________________________________
                                             Thomas J. Baker, Justice

Before Justices Baker, Smith, and Jones*

Affirmed

Filed: April 28, 2023
*
 Before J. Woodfin Jones, Chief Justice (Retired), Third Court of Appeals, sitting by assignment.
See Tex. Gov’t Code § 74.003(b).

       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
of a petition for review.” In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 (Tex. 2016) (per curiam). Accordingly,
counsels’ obligations to Mother and Father have not yet been discharged. See id. If after
consulting with their attorneys Mother, Father, or both desire to file a petition for review, their
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.

                                                3