v. M. v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services ( 2012 )

COURT OF APPEALS
EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
EL PASO, TEXAS
§
V.M., No. 08-12-00181-CV
§
Appellant, Appeal from the
§
v. 65th District Court
§
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY of El Paso County, Texas
AND PROTECTIVE SERVICES, §
(TC# 2009CM6364)
Appellee. §
MEMORANDUM OPINION
V.M. appeals from a final order terminating her parental rights to six children. We affirm.
V.M. is represented on appeal by court-appointed counsel who has filed a brief in
accordance with the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 741-44, 87 S. Ct. 1396,
1398-1400, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967). Court-appointed counsel has concluded that, after a thorough
review of the record, V.M.’s appeal is frivolous and without merit. In Anders, the Supreme Court
recognized that counsel, though appointed to represent the appellant in an appeal from a criminal
conviction, had no duty to pursue a frivolous matter on appeal. Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S.Ct.
at 1400. Thus, counsel was permitted to withdraw after informing the court of his conclusion and
the effort made in arriving at that conclusion. Id. On several occasions, this Court has
concluded that that the procedures set forth in Anders apply to an appeal from a case involving the
termination of parental rights when court-appointed counsel has determined that the appeal is
frivolous. See In re J.B., 296 S.W.3d 618, 619 (Tex.App.--El Paso 2009, no pet.)(holding Anders
1
is applicable in an appeal from a termination of parental rights where court-appointed counsel has
determined that the appeal is frivolous); In re K.R.C., 346 S.W.3d 618, 619 (Tex.App.--El Paso
2009, no pet.)(same); see also In re C.A.B, No. 08-08-00346-CV, 2009 WL 3152869, *1
(Tex.App.--El Paso Sept. 30, 2009, no pet.)(mem. op.)(same).
Court-appointed counsel’s 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 Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807
(Tex.Crim.App. 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex.Crim.App. 1974). In her motion to
withdraw filed concurrently with her Anders brief, counsel avers that, despite her efforts to contact
V.M., she was unable to deliver copies of her motion and brief to V.M. because V.M.’s
whereabouts are unknown.1 V.M. has not filed a pro se brief.
We have thoroughly reviewed the record and counsel’s brief, and we agree with counsel’s
professional assessment that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. Because there is nothing
in the record that might arguably support the appeal, a further discussion of the arguable grounds
advanced in counsel’s brief would add nothing to the jurisprudence of the state. Accordingly, the
final order terminating V.M.’s parental rights to six children is affirmed. We also grant counsel’s
motion to withdraw. See Moore v. State, No. 03-05-00690-CR, 2007 WL 2811971, *1
(Tex.App.--Austin Sept. 26, 2007, no pet.)(mem. op., not designated for publication)(granting
motion to withdraw filed by court-appointed counsel unable to provide a copy of his Anders brief
to appellant because her whereabouts were unknown).
1
Counsel avers that she attempted several times to contact V.M., who is homeless, by telephone at V.M.’s last known
number.
2
September 19, 2012
CHRISTOPHER ANTCLIFF, Justice
Before McClure, C.J., Rivera, and Antcliff, JJ.
3