Court Opinion

ID: 9399166
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-02 09:10:36.265795+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:39.298474
License: Public Domain

IN THE
                          TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

                                 No. 10-23-00024-CV

                    IN THE INTEREST OF W.L.P., A CHILD

                          From the County Court at Law
                               Ellis County, Texas
                           Trial Court No. 107445-CCL

                           MEMORANDUM OPINION

       The mother of W.L.P. appealed from a judgment that terminated the parent-child

relationship between her and her child. See, generally, TEX. FAM. CODE § 161.001. The

mother’s appointed counsel has filed an Anders brief asserting that the appeal presents

no issue of arguable merit and a motion to withdraw as counsel. See Anders v. California,

386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967). The procedures set forth in Anders v.

California are generally applicable to appeals of judgments that terminate parental rights.

In re E.L.Y., 69 S.W.3d 838, 841 (Tex. App.—Waco 2002, order). Counsel advised the

mother that counsel had filed the brief pursuant to Anders and that the mother had the

right to review the record and file a pro se response on her own behalf. Counsel also
stated that she provided the mother with the clerk’s and reporter’s records in this

proceeding. The mother did not file a pro se response with this Court.

          Counsel included a recitation of the procedural history and relevant facts in the

Anders brief and asserted that counsel had reviewed the record for any potentially

meritorious issues, including jurisdictional issues, and determined there are no non-

frivolous issues to raise in this appeal. Counsel's brief discusses the sufficiency of the

evidence as to each of the predicate acts upon which the termination was granted,

including Section 161.001(b)(1)(D) and (E), as well as best interest. Counsel's brief

includes a professional evaluation of the record, and we conclude that counsel performed

the duties required of appointed counsel. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; see also In re

Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406-408 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).

          Upon the filing of an Anders brief, as the reviewing appellate court, it is our duty

to independently examine the record to decide whether counsel is correct in determining

that an appeal is frivolous. See In re G.P., 503 S.W.3d 531, 536 (Tex. App.—Waco 2016,

pet. denied). Arguments are frivolous when they "cannot conceivably persuade the

court." McCoy v. Court of Appeals, 486 U.S. 429, 436, 108 S. Ct. 1895, 100 L. Ed. 2d 440

(1988).

          Having carefully reviewed the entire record and the Anders brief, we have

determined that the appeal is frivolous.          Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's

judgment.

In the Interest of W.L.P., a child                                                      Page 2
CONCLUSION

        Having found no meritorious issues presented in this appeal, we affirm the

judgment of the trial court.

                                             TOM GRAY
                                             Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,
       Justice Johnson, and
       Justice Smith
Affirmed
Opinion delivered and filed May 31, 2023
[CV06]

In the Interest of W.L.P., a child                                          Page 3