J. D. D. and G. M. v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services ( 2019 )

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-19-00371-CV
J. D. D. and G. M., Appellants
v.
Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee
FROM THE 340TH DISTRICT COURT OF TOM GREEN COUNTY
NO. C-18-0019-CPS, THE HONORABLE JAY K. WEATHERBY, JUDGE PRESIDING
MEMORANDUM OPINION
J.D.D. and G.M. appeal from the trial court’s order terminating their parental
rights to their children.1 See Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001. Following a de novo hearing, the trial
court found by clear and convincing evidence that statutory grounds for terminating their
parental rights existed and that termination was in the children’s best interest. See id.
§ 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), (O), (2).
On appeal, appellants’ court-appointed attorneys have filed briefs concluding that
the 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.—
1
We refer to appellants by their initials only. See Tex. Fam. Code § 109.002(d); Tex. R.
App. P. 9.8. G. M. is the mother of the three children in this case, and J.D.D. is the father of one
of the children. The other two children’s father’s parental rights also were terminated in the trial
court’s order, but he has not appealed from the order and is not a party in this appeal.
Austin 2005, pet. denied) (applying Anders procedure in appeal from termination of parental
rights). The briefs meet the requirements of Anders by presenting a professional evaluation of
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. Appellants’ counsel have certified to this Court
that they provided appellants with a copy of the Anders briefs and informed them of their right to
examine the appellate record and to file a pro se brief. To date, appellants have not filed a pro se
brief. The Department of Family and Protective Services has filed responses to the Anders
briefs, stating that it will not file an appellee’s brief unless it deems a brief necessary after the
review of any pro se response or this Court requests one.
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 briefs submitted on
appellants’ behalf, and have found nothing that would arguably support an appeal. We agree that
the appeal is frivolous and without merit. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s order
terminating appellants’ parental rights.2
2
To the extent counsel requests to withdraw from their court appointed duties, counsels’
obligation to their clients have not yet been discharged. See In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 (Tex.
2016) (per curiam). If appellants, after consulting with counsel, desire to file a petition for
review, 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
__________________________________________
Melissa Goodwin, Justice
Before Justices Goodwin, Baker, and Kelly
Affirmed
Filed: September 24, 2019
3