Y. R. v. Department of Family and Protective Services ( 2015 )

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-15-00101-CV
Y. R., Appellant
v.
Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee
FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW OF BASTROP COUNTY,
NO. 13-16142, HONORABLE BENTON ESKEW, JUDGE PRESIDING
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Y.R. appeals from the trial court’s order terminating her parental rights to her
minor children, A.R., B.R., and C.R. See Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001. In support of its petition to
terminate Y.R.’s parental rights, the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (the
Department) alleged that Y.R.: (1) knowingly placed or knowingly allowed the children to remain
in conditions or surroundings that endangered the physical or emotional well-being of the children,
see id. § 161.001(D); (2) engaged in conduct or knowingly placed the children with persons who
engaged in conduct that endangered the physical or emotional well-being of the children,
see id. § 161.001(E); and (3) failed to comply with the terms of a court order that established the
specific actions Y.R. had to take to achieve reunification with her children after their removal
from Y.R. for abuse or neglect, see id. § 161.001(1)(O). The Department also alleged that termination
of Y.R.’s parental rights was in the children’s best interest. See id. § 161.001(2). Following a bench
trial, the trial court found by clear and convincing evidence that all three statutory grounds for
terminating Y.R.’s parental rights existed and that termination was in the children’s best interest.
On appeal, Y.R.’s court-appointed attorney has filed an Anders brief informing this
Court that he has made a diligent review of the appellate record and can find no arguable grounds
to be advanced on appeal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). 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. See 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). Counsel has provided Y.R. with a copy of the Anders
brief along with a notice advising Y.R. of her right to examine the appellate record and to file a
pro se brief. No pro se brief has been filed.
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 Y.R.’s behalf,
and we 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 Y.R.’s
parental rights and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw as attorney of record.
2
__________________________________________
Scott K. Field, Justice
Before Chief Justice Rose, Justices Goodwin and Field
Affirmed
Filed: May 6, 2015
3