in the Interest of C.T., C.T., K.T., K.T., K.T., K.T., and K.L., Children ( 2022 )

In the
Court of Appeals
Second Appellate District of Texas
at Fort Worth
___________________________
No. 02-21-00390-CV
___________________________
IN THE INTEREST OF C.T., C.T., K.T., K.T., K.T., K.T., AND K.L.,
CHILDREN
On Appeal from the 324th District Court
Tarrant County, Texas
Trial Court No. 324-587992-15
Before Sudderth, C.J.; Bassel and Walker, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Bassel
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant A.T. appeals from the district court’s order appointing her
possessory conservator of her children, C.T., C.T., K.T., K.T., K.T., K.T., and K.L.;
appointing A.T.’s mother, T.L., permanent managing conservator of K.T., K.T., K.T.,
and K.L.; and appointing A.T.’s sister, D.L., permanent managing conservator of
C.T., C.T., and K.T. 1 A.T.’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed an Anders
brief, concluding that the appeal is frivolous and without merit, and has filed a motion
to withdraw. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967);
In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 & n.10 (Tex. 2016) (approving use of Anders procedure
in appeals from termination of parental rights because it “strikes an important balance
between the . . . defendant’s constitutional right to counsel on appeal and counsel’s
obligation not to prosecute frivolous appeals”). 2
The brief meets the requirements of Anders by presenting a professional
evaluation of the record and demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be
advanced on appeal. See id., 87 S. Ct. at 1400; Taylor v. Tex. Dep’t of Protective & Regul.
Servs., 160 S.W.3d 641, 646–47 (Tex. App.—Austin 2005, pet. denied). A.T.’s counsel
We use aliases to refer to the children and their family members. See Tex.
1
Fam. Code Ann. § 109.002(d); Tex. R. App. P. 9.8(b)(2).
2
Although the Department of Family and Protective Services ultimately did not
seek termination of A.T.’s parental rights, the Department’s original petition sought
that relief in the alternative to reunification, and the trial court appointed counsel to
represent A.T. After trial, the trial court found that A.T. remained entitled to a court-
appointed attorney on appeal and appointed appellate counsel.
2
has certified to this court that he provided A.T. with a copy of the Anders brief and
informed her of her right to examine the appellate record and to file a pro se brief.
A.T. declined to file a response. The Department notified us that it would not file a
brief.
Upon receiving an Anders brief, we must conduct an independent examination
of the record to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. See Penson v. Ohio,
488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S. Ct. 346, 350 (1988); Taylor, 160 S.W.3d at 647. We have
reviewed the entire record, including the Anders brief submitted on A.T.’s behalf. Our
review of the record assures us that any issue that A.T. might raise would be frivolous.
Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s order.
Motion to Withdraw
The Texas Supreme Court has determined that we must deny counsel’s motion
to withdraw in this parental rights termination case because a parent’s statutory right
to counsel in suits seeking termination of parental rights extends to all proceedings in
the Texas Supreme Court, including the filing of a petition for review, and counsel’s
“belief” that the appeal is frivolous does not constitute “good cause” for withdrawal.
P.M., 520 S.W.3d at 27–28; see Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 107.016(2) (stating that in a suit
by a governmental entity seeking the termination of parental rights, an attorney
appointed to serve as an attorney ad litem for a parent or alleged father continues to
serve in that capacity until the suit is dismissed, the date all appeals from the
termination order are exhausted, or the date the attorney is relieved of his duties or
3
replaced by another attorney after a finding of good cause is rendered by the court).
Accordingly, we must deny counsel’s motion to withdraw. See P.M., 520 S.W.3d at
27–28. In the event A.T. advises appointed counsel that she wishes to challenge our
decision by filing a petition for review, “counsel’s obligations can be satisfied by filing
a petition for review that satisfies the standards for an Anders brief.” Id. Counsel’s
motion to withdraw is denied.
/s/ Dabney Bassel
Dabney Bassel
Justice
Delivered: April 7, 2021
4