T. L. B. v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •       TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
    NO. 03-14-00817-CV
    T. L. B., Appellant
    v.
    Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee
    FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TOM GREEN COUNTY, 340TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
    NO. C-13-0050-CPS, HONORABLE JAY K. WEATHERBY, JUDGE PRESIDING
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    T.L.B. appeals from the trial court’s order terminating her parental rights to her
    minor children, S.M.J., J.J.J., and M.W.B. See Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001. In support of its petition
    to terminate T.L.B.’s parental rights, the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (the
    Department) alleged that T.L.B.: (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 T.L.B. had to take to achieve reunification with her children after their removal
    from T.L.B. for abuse or neglect, see 
    id. § 161.001(1)(O).
    The Department also alleged that
    termination of T.L.B.’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 T.L.B.’s parental rights existed and that termination was in the children’s
    best interest.1
    On appeal, T.L.B.’s court-appointed attorney has filed an Anders brief informing this
    Court that she 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 T.L.B. with a copy of the
    Anders brief along with a notice advising T.L.B. 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 T.L.B.’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 T.L.B.’s
    parental rights and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw as attorney of record.
    1
    The trial court also ordered termination of the parental rights of S.B., M.W.B.’s father.
    S.B. has not appealed the trial court’s order.
    2
    __________________________________________
    Scott K. Field, Justice
    Before Chief Justice Rose, Justices Goodwin and Field
    Affirmed
    Filed: May 5, 2015
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 03-14-00817-CV

Filed Date: 5/5/2015

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 9/17/2015