in Re Z.A.F. and Z.R.F ( 2019 )

Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-19-00101-CV
In the Interest of Z.A.F. and Z.R.F.
From the 131st Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2018PA00277
Honorable Charles E. Montemayor, Judge Presiding
Opinion by: Irene Rios, Justice
Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice
Irene Rios, Justice
Beth Watkins, Justice
Delivered and Filed: August 19, 2019
AFFIRMED, MOTION TO WITHDRAW DENIED
In this appeal, appellant Mother challenges the trial court’s order terminating her parental
rights to her children, Z.A.F. and Z.R.F. Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a brief
discussing the applicable law and conducting a professional evaluation of the record. In her brief,
counsel concludes this appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. Counsel’s brief meets the
requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). See In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27
(Tex. 2016) (noting Anders procedures apply in parental termination cases). Additionally, counsel
certified that she provided appellant a copy of the brief and informed appellant of her right to
review the record and file a pro se brief. Appellant has filed a pro se brief in which she states that
she has reviewed the record in this case.
04-19-00101-CV
When both an Anders brief and a pro se brief are filed, we examine the briefs and the record
and determine if the appeal is wholly frivolous or if arguable grounds for appeal exist. Bledsoe v.
State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). If we determine the appeal is wholly
frivolous, we must issue an opinion explaining our decision. Id. On the other hand, if we determine
that arguable grounds for appeal exist, we must remand the case to the trial court so that new
counsel may be appointed to brief the issues. Id. at 827.
In the present case, we have thoroughly reviewed the record, counsel’s Anders brief, and
appellant’s pro se brief. The record establishes by clear and convincing evidence at least one of
the grounds for termination and that termination is in the children’s best interest. See TEX. FAM.
CODE ANN. § 161.001(b); In re J.O.A., 283 S.W.3d 336, 344-45 (Tex. 2009). Upon a thorough
review of the record, we conclude the evidence is legally and factually sufficient to support the
termination order and there are no other arguably meritorious grounds for appeal. Therefore, we
affirm the trial court’s termination order.
Counsel filed a motion to withdraw in conjunction with her Anders brief. We deny
counsel’s motion to withdraw because it fails to demonstrate good cause for counsel to withdraw.
See In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d at 27 & n.7 (providing that counsel who files an Anders brief in the
court of appeals should be permitted to withdraw “only for good cause”); Jackson v. Jackson, 556
S.W.3d 461, 467-68 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2018, no pet.) (discussing factors courts
consider in deciding if good cause exists for counsel to withdraw). Counsel’s duty to her client
extends through the exhaustion or waiver of “all appeals.” See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 107.016(3);
In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d at 27. If appellant desires to pursue this appeal to the Texas Supreme Court,
counsel may fulfill her duty to her client “by filing a petition for review that satisfies the standards
for an Anders brief.” See In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d at 27-28 & n.14.
Irene Rios, Justice
-2-