Court Opinion

ID: 9380713
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-21 10:06:25.283363+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:26.916164
License: Public Domain

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

                                      NO. 03-22-00706-CV

                                         H. B., Appellant

                                                 v.

                Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee

              FROM THE 126TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY
NO. D-1-FM-21-006937, THE HONORABLE MAYA GUERRA GAMBLE, JUDGE PRESIDING

                            MEMORANDUM OPINION

               H.B. appeals from the final order terminating her parental rights to her daughter

D.T., who was about one month old when she was removed from H.B.’s care and was fifteen

months old when the order was signed. Following a several-day trial, a jury returned a verdict

finding that termination is in D.T.’s best interest and that H.B. had endangered D.T.’s well-being

and had failed to comply with a court order that established necessary actions for her to regain

custody after the child’s removal for abuse or neglect. See Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001(b)(1)(D),

(E), (O), (b)(2). H.B. timely filed her notice of appeal.

               H.B.’s court-appointed counsel has filed a brief concluding that any appeal is

frivolous and without merit. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967) (stating that

court-appointed counsel who believes appeal is wholly frivolous should file motion to withdraw

“accompanied by a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the
appeal”); 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). Counsel’s brief meets the

Anders requirements by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating that

there are no arguable grounds for reversal to be advanced on appeal. See 386 U.S. at 744; Taylor

v. Texas Dep’t of Protective & Regul. Servs., 160 S.W.3d 641, 646-47 (Tex. App.—Austin 2005,

pet. denied) (applying Anders procedure in termination case). Counsel has certified to this Court

that he provided H.B. with a copy of the Anders brief and a notice of H.B.’s right to file a pro se

brief. H.B. has not filed a brief or otherwise communicated with this Court.

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

proceedings to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75,

80 (1988). Having reviewed the record and the briefing, we find nothing that would arguably

support a meritorious appeal. We thus agree with counsel that the appeal is frivolous and

without merit.

                 As counsel acknowledges, a parent’s right to counsel in termination suits extends

to “all proceedings in [the Supreme Court of Texas], including the filing of a petition for

review,” and counsel’s obligations to H.B. have not yet been discharged. See P.M., 520 S.W.3d

at 27. If H.B., after consulting with counsel, desires to file a petition for review, counsel should

timely file with the high court “a petition for review that satisfies the standards for an Anders

brief.” See id. at 27-28.

                 We therefore affirm the order terminating H.B.’s parental rights.

                                                  2
                                            __________________________________________
                                            Edward Smith, Justice

Before Justices Baker, Smith, and Jones*

Affirmed

Filed: March 17, 2023

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

                                               3