M. M. v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services ( 2014 )

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-14-00157-CV
M. M., Appellant
v.
Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TOM GREEN COUNTY, 340TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NO. C-12-0085-CPS, HONORABLE JAY K. WEATHERBY, JUDGE PRESIDING
MEMORANDUM OPINION
M.M. appeals from the trial court’s decree terminating his parental rights to his minor
children, A.P.M., M.M., Jr., and M.M.M.1 See Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001. In support of its petition
to terminate M.M.’s parental rights, the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services alleged
that M.M. knowingly placed or knowingly allowed the children to remain in conditions or
surroundings which endanger the physical or emotional well-being of the children and engaged in
conduct or knowingly placed the children with persons who engaged in conduct which endangers
the physical or emotional well-being of the children. See id. § 161.001(1)(D), (E). Following a
termination hearing, the trial court found by clear and convincing evidence that statutory grounds
for terminating M.M.’s parental rights existed and that termination was in the children’s best interest.
1
We refer to the father and his children by their initials only. See Tex. Fam. Code
§ 109.002(d); Tex. R. App. P. 9.8.
On appeal, M.M.’s court-appointed attorney has filed a motion to withdraw and
a brief 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.—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 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. Counsel certified to this
Court that she provided M.M. with a copy of the Anders brief and motion for withdrawal of counsel
and informed him of his right to examine the appellate record and to file a pro se brief. To date,
M.M. has not filed a pro se brief.
Upon receiving an Anders brief, we must conduct a full examination of all 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 M.M’s 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 M.M’s parental rights
and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw as attorney of record.
_____________________________________________
Melissa Goodwin, Justice
Before Justices Puryear, Goodwin, and Field
Affirmed
Filed: June 11, 2014
2