Court Opinion

ID: 9930271
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-06 16:16:08.71946+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:10:58.897058
License: Public Domain

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

                                     NO. 03-23-00622-CV

                                        A.S., Appellant

                                                v.

               Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee

                FROM THE 274TH DISTRICT COURT OF COMAL COUNTY
                 NO. C2023-1835B, GLENN H. DEVLIN, JUDGE PRESIDING

                           MEMORANDUM OPINION

               Mother appeals the trial court’s final order terminating her parental rights to her

son, L.T.1 See Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001. After a jury trial, the jury found by clear and

convincing evidence that statutory grounds for terminating her parental rights existed and that

termination of those rights was in the child's best interest. See id. § 161.001(b)(1)(D)–(E), (O),

(P), (2).

               Appellant’s court-appointed attorney has filed a motion to withdraw supported by

an Anders brief, concluding that the appeal is 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 terminations of parental rights).

The brief meets the requirements of Anders by presenting a professional evaluation of the record

demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced on appeal. See 386 U.S. at

        1
           For the child’s privacy, we will refer to him by an alias and to his family members by
their relationships to him or by aliases. See Tex. R. App. P. 9.8.
744; Taylor v. Texas Dep’t of Protective & Regul. Servs., 160 S.W.3d 641, 646–47 (Tex. App.—

Austin 2005, pet. denied). Appellant’s counsel has certified to this Court that she has provided

Mother with a copy of the Anders brief and the motion to withdraw and advised her of her rights

to examine the appellate record and to file a pro se brief. To date, Mother has not filed a pro se

brief. The Department of Family and Protective Services has filed a response to the Anders

brief, stating that it will not file a brief unless requested by this Court or after reviewing any

pro se response.

               Upon receiving an Anders brief, we must conduct a full examination of the record

to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988);

Taylor, 160 S.W.3d at 647. We have conducted an independent review of the entire record,

including the Anders brief submitted on Mother’s behalf. We have found nothing in the record

that might arguably support an appeal, and we agree the appeal is frivolous and without merit.

We have specifically reviewed the trial court’s findings as to Mother under subsections (D)

and (E) of Family Code section 161.001(b)(1), and we have found no nonfrivolous 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) (per curiam). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s order terminating Mother’s

parental rights.

               However, the Supreme Court of Texas has held that the right to counsel in suits

seeking the termination of parental rights extends to “all proceedings in th[e Supreme Court of

Texas], including the filing of a petition for review.” In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 (Tex. 2016)

(per curiam). Accordingly, counsel’s obligation to Mother has not yet been discharged. See id.

If after consulting with counsel Mother desires to file a petition for review, her counsel should

                                                2
timely file with the Supreme Court “a petition for review that satisfies the standards for an

Anders brief.” See id. at 27–28. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is denied.

                                           __________________________________________
                                           Darlene Byrne, Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Smith and Theofanis

Affirmed

Filed: February 6, 2024

                                              3