Court Opinion

ID: 9915665
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-06 07:09:27.888586+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:17:43.842572
License: Public Domain

Opinion filed January 4, 2024

                                                In The

            Eleventh Court of Appeals
                                            __________

                                     No. 11-23-00179-CV
                                         __________

                     IN THE INTEREST OF E.K., A CHILD

                          On Appeal from the 29th District Court
                                Palo Pinto County, Texas
                              Trial Court Cause No. C50369

                           MEMORAND UM OPI NI ON
        This is an appeal from a final order in which the trial court terminated the
parental rights of the mother of E.K. 1 See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 161.001 (West
Supp. 2023). The mother filed a notice of appeal. We affirm.
        Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and a
supporting brief in which she professionally and conscientiously examines the
record and applicable law and concludes that the appeal is frivolous and without

        1
         The trial court also terminated the parental rights of the unknown father. No appeal has been filed
on the unknown father’s behalf.
merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating why
there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403,
406–08 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim.
App. [Panel Op.] 1978).
      Appellant’s attorney sent by electronic mail, express mail, and certified mail
to Appellant’s last known address a copy of the brief, motion, reporter’s record,
clerk’s record, and a letter explaining Appellant’s right to review the record and file
a pro se response. This court made efforts to ensure Appellant’s access to this court
and to apprise her of the pendency of this appeal and of the actions by counsel on
appeal. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 318–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).
Appellant’s deadline to file a pro se response was December 18, 2023, and no
response has been filed.
      Here, the trial court found by clear and convincing evidence that Appellant:
(1) knowingly placed or knowingly allowed the child to remain in conditions or
surroundings which endangered the physical or emotional well-being of the child;
(2) engaged in conduct or knowingly placed the child with persons who engaged in
conduct which endangered the physical or emotional well-being of the child; and
(3) failed to comply with the provisions of a court order that specifically established
the actions necessary for the parent to obtain the return of the child who has been in
the permanent or temporary managing conservatorship of the Department for no less
than nine months as a result of the child’s removal from the parent for abuse or
neglect. See id. § 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), (O). The trial court further found by clear
and convincing evidence that termination of Appellant’s parental rights to E.K. is in
the child’s best interest. See id. § 161.001(b)(2).

                                           2
         In an ordinary appeal, the Texas Supreme Court has held that “due process
and due course of law requirements mandate that an appellate court detail its analysis
for an appeal of termination of parental rights under Section 161.001(b)(1)(D) or
(E).” In re N.G., 577 S.W.3d 230, 237 (Tex. 2019) (per curiam). That court has not
decided whether a court of appeals is required to address findings in an Anders
disposition of a termination of parental rights on predicate grounds (D) or (E). See
In re E.K., 608 S.W.3d 815, 815–16 (Tex. 2020) (Green, J., concurring in denial of
petition for review) (citing N.G., 577 S.W.3d at 230 (Tex. 2019). We thus decline to
do so. See In re M.R., No. 14-22-00747-CV, 2023 WL 2808095, at *1 n.1 (Tex.
App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Apr. 6, 2023, no pet.) (mem. op.); In re J.W., No. 10-22-
00299-CV, 2022 WL 17341241, at *1 n.1 (Tex. App.—Waco Nov. 30, 2022, pet.
denied).
         Counsel’s Anders brief included a review of subsections (D) and (E). We
conclude Appellant’s counsel has satisfied her duties under Anders, Schulman, and
Kelly.     Following the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman, we have
independently reviewed the record in this case, considered the trial court’s findings,
particularly as to Family Code Sections 161.001(b)(1)(D) and (E), and agree that
Appellant’s appeal is without merit.
         Counsel for Appellant filed a motion to withdraw in addition to her brief. In
light of the Texas Supreme Court’s holding in In re P.M., we deny the motion to
withdraw because counsel has not shown “good cause” other than the determination
that an appeal would be frivolous. See In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 (Tex. 2016)
(“[A]n Anders motion to withdraw brought in the court of appeals, in the absence of
additional grounds for withdrawal, may be premature.”). In parental termination
cases, court-appointed counsel’s duty to his or her client generally extends “through
the exhaustion of appeals,” “including the filing of a petition for review” in the Texas

                                           3
Supreme Court. Id. at 27–28. “[A]ppointed counsel’s obligations can be satisfied by
filing a petition for review that satisfies the standards for an Anders brief.” Id.
      Accordingly, we deny counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm the trial
court’s order of termination.

                                                      W. BRUCE WILLIAMS
                                                      JUSTICE

January 4, 2024
Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,
Trotter, J., and Williams, J.

                                           4