Court Opinion

ID: 9555767
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-15 10:08:17.762605+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:42:21.128755
License: Public Domain

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

                                      NO. 03-23-00330-CV

                                         J. A., Appellant

                                                 v.

                Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee

                   FROM THE 146TH DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY
           NO. 22DFAM331777, THE HONORABLE DALLAS SIMS, JUDGE PRESIDING

                            MEMORANDUM OPINION

               J.A. (Father) appeals from the trial court’s decree of termination following a

bench trial. 1 See Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001. The trial court found by clear and convincing

evidence that statutory grounds for terminating his parental rights existed and that termination

was in his child Ann’s best interest. See id. § 161.001(b)(1)(E), (O), (2).

               On appeal, Father’s court-appointed attorney has filed a brief concluding that his

appeal is frivolous and without merit. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967);

Taylor v. Texas Dep’t of Protective & Regulatory Servs., 160 S.W.3d 641, 646–47 (Tex. App.—

Austin 2005, pet. denied) (applying Anders procedure in appeal from termination of parental

rights). The brief meets the requirements of Anders by presenting a professional evaluation of

       1  We refer to appellant by his initials or as Father and his child by an alias or as Child.
See Tex. Fam. Code § 109.002(d); Tex. R. App. P. 9.8. The parental rights of the child’s mother
also were terminated in the order of termination, but she has not appealed.
the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced on appeal. See

386 U.S. at 744; Taylor, 160 S.W.3d at 646–47. Father’s attorney has certified to this Court that

he provided a copy of the Anders brief to Father and informed him of his right to examine the

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

               Upon receiving 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).    We have reviewed the entire record, including the Anders brief submitted on

Father’s behalf, and have found nothing that would arguably support an appeal. Our review

included the trial court’s endangerment finding, see Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001(b)(1)(E), and we

have found no issues that could be raised on appeal with respect to this finding, see In re N.G.,

577 S.W.3d 230, 237 (Tex. 2019). We agree that the appeal is frivolous and without merit.

Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s decree of termination. 2

                                               __________________________________________
                                               Rosa Lopez Theofanis, Justice

Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Kelly and Theofanis

Affirmed

Filed: August 10, 2023

       2   We deny Father’s counsel’s motion to withdraw as attorney of record. See In re P.M.,
520 S.W.3d 24, 27 (Tex. 2016) (per curiam). If Father, after consulting with counsel, desires to
file a petition for review, his counsel should timely file with the Texas Supreme Court “a petition
for review that satisfies the standards for an Anders brief.” See id. at 27–28.
                                                  2