in the Interest of S. T. and T. T., Children v. Department of Family and Protective Services ( 2019 )

Opinion issued August 29, 2019
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-19-00193-CV
———————————
IN THE INTEREST OF S. T. AND T. T., CHILDREN
On Appeal from the 315th District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Case No. 2017-04577J-A
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This is an appeal from the trial court’s final decree for termination in a suit
brought by the Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS) to terminate
the parent-child relationship between L.N.T. and two of her children, S.T. and T.T.
In its decree, the trial court terminated L.N.T.’s parental rights and appointed
DFPS as sole managing conservator of the children. L.N.T. filed a notice of appeal,
and the trial court appointed separate counsel on her behalf to prosecute this
appeal. L.N.T.’s court-appointed appellate counsel has moved to withdraw and
filed an Anders brief, stating that, in her professional opinion, this appeal is
without merit and that there are no arguable grounds for reversal. See Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967).
Anders procedures are appropriate in an appeal from a trial court’s final
order in a parental-rights termination suit. In re K.D., 127 S.W.3d 66, 67 (Tex.
App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, no pet.). Counsel has certified that she has
delivered a copy of the Anders brief to L.N.T. and informed her of her right to
examine the appellate record and to file a response. See In re Schulman, 252
S.W.3d 403, 408 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). L.N.T. has not filed a response, and
DFPS has waived its right to respond.
The brief submitted by L.N.T.’s appointed appellate counsel states her
professional opinion that no arguable grounds for reversal exist and that any appeal
would therefore lack merit. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. Counsel’s brief meets the
minimum Anders requirements by presenting a professional evaluation of the
record and stating why there are no arguable grounds for reversal on appeal. See id.
at 744; In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 406–07.
When we receive an Anders brief from an appointed attorney who asserts
that no arguable grounds for appeal exist, we independently determine whether
2
arguable grounds exist by conducting our own review of the entire record. Johnson
v. Dep’t of Family & Protective Servs., No. 01-08-00749-CV, 2010 WL 5186806,
at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Dec. 23, 2010, no pet.) (mem. op.); In re
D.E.S., 135 S.W.3d 326, 330 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, no pet.). If
our independent review of the record leads us to conclude that the appeal is
frivolous, we may affirm the trial court’s judgment by issuing an opinion in which
we explain that we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. See
Johnson, 2010 WL 5186806, at *2.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that there are no
arguable grounds for review, that no reversible error exists, and therefore L.N.T.’s
appeal is frivolous. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744 (emphasizing that reviewing
court—and not counsel—determines, after full examination of proceedings,
whether appeal is wholly frivolous); In re A.M., 495 S.W.3d 573, 582 (Tex.
App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2016, pet. denied). Accordingly, we affirm the trial
court’s termination decree.
However, we deny counsel’s motion to withdraw because this is a parental
termination case. See In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 (Tex. 2016) (holding that
Anders brief in parental termination case is not “good cause” sufficient, alone, to
justify counsel’s withdrawal); In re A.M., 495 S.W.3d at 582 & n.2. A counsel’s
duties to her clients extend through the exhaustion or waiver of “all appeals.” In re
3
A.M., 495 S.W.3d at 583 (citing TEX. FAM. CODE § 107.016). If L.N.T. chooses to
pursue a petition for review to the Supreme Court of Texas, her “appointed
counsel’s obligations can be satisfied by filing a petition for review that satisfies
the standards for an Anders brief.” In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d at 27–28.
Conclusion
We affirm.
Sarah Beth Landau
Justice
Panel consists of Justices Lloyd, Goodman, and Landau.
4