Court Opinion

ID: 9925571
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-22 09:09:51.969495+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:03.131459
License: Public Domain

Opinion issued January 18, 2024

                                       In The

                                Court of Appeals
                                      For The

                           First District of Texas
                              ————————————
                               NO. 01-23-00588-CV
                             ———————————
       IN THE INTEREST OF I.Z.M., C.R.H., AND E.C., CHILDREN

                    On Appeal from the 308th District Court
                             Harris County, Texas
                       Trial Court Case No. 2022-02367

                           MEMORANDUM OPINION

      Mother appeals the trial court’s order terminating her parental rights to I.Z.M.,

C.R.H., and E.C. Mother’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed an Anders

brief, contending that the record contains no reversible error and that he is unable to

raise any arguable grounds for the appeal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738,
744 (1967). Because we find no meritorious issues after an independent review of

the record, we affirm the trial court’s order.

      The Anders procedures apply in termination of parental rights cases. In re J.S.,

584 S.W.3d 622, 638 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2019, no pet.). Counsel filed

a brief stating that he has complied with all Anders requirements and requesting that

he be allowed to withdraw from his representation of Mother. The Clerk of this Court

independently notified Mother that her counsel had filed an Anders brief, that she

had the right to file a pro se response, and that she was entitled to a copy of the

appellate record to assist in preparing her response. Mother has not filed a response.

      Counsel’s Anders brief states his professional opinion that no arguable

grounds for reversal of the trial court’s termination order exist and that any appeal

would therefore lack merit and be frivolous. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. 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.; In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008)

(purpose of Anders brief is to assure appellate court that appointed attorney has made

thorough and conscientious examination of record, provided court with appropriate

facts of case and procedural history, and pointed out any arguable points of error).

      When we receive an Anders brief from the appellant’s appointed attorney who

asserts that no arguable grounds for appeal exist, we must determine that issue

                                           2
independently by conducting our own review of the entire record. Johnson v. Dep’t

of Family & Protective Servs., No. 01-08-00749-CV, 2010 WL 5186806, at *1 (Tex.

App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Dec. 23, 2010, no pet.) (mem. op.). If we determine that

arguable grounds for appeal exist, we abate the appeal and remand the case to the

trial court to allow the appointed attorney to withdraw. Johnson, 2010 WL 5186806,

at *2. Then, the trial court appoints another attorney to present all arguable grounds

for appeal. Id. But if, after independently reviewing the record, we conclude that the

appeal is frivolous, we may affirm the trial court’s termination judgment by issuing

an opinion explaining that we have reviewed the record and found no reversible

error. Id. The parent may challenge that holding by filing a petition for review with

the Texas Supreme Court. Id.

      We have independently reviewed the entire record and counsel’s Anders brief

and agree with counsel’s assessment that the appeal is frivolous and without merit.

In re A.M., 495 S.W.3d 573, 582 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2016, pet. denied).

Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s termination decree as to appellant.

      However, we deny counsel’s request in the Anders brief for leave to withdraw

from representing Mother. The basis for counsel’s request is his belief that there are

no meritorious grounds for appeal. The frivolous nature of an appeal is not sufficient

good cause for withdrawal in an appeal from the termination of parental rights. See

In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 (Tex. 2016) (per curiam) (“[A]n Anders motion to

                                          3
withdraw brought in the court of appeals, in the absence of additional grounds for

withdrawal, may be premature.”); In re A.M., 495 S.W.3d at 583. If Mother, after

consulting with counsel, desires to pursue a petition for review to the Texas Supreme

Court, counsel’s obligations can be met by filing a petition for review that satisfies

Anders. In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d at 27–28; In re A.M., 495 S.W.3d at 583.

                                    Conclusion

      We affirm the trial court’s order terminating Mother’s parental rights to

I.Z.M., C.R.H., and E.C. We deny counsel’s request to withdraw.

                                              Sarah Beth Landau
                                              Justice

Panel consists of Chief Justice Adams and Justices Landau and Rivas-Molloy.

                                          4