L. R. v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services ( 2019 )

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-19-00558-CV
L. R., Appellant
v.
Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee
FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY
NO. 17-0132-CPSC1, THE HONORABLE BRANDY HALLFORD, JUDGE PRESIDING
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Louise appeals a final judgment terminating her parental rights to a child.1
Following a jury trial, the trial court entered judgment finding by clear and convincing evidence
that multiple statutory grounds support terminating her parental rights and that termination is in
the best interest of the child. See Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), (O). Louise filed
timely appeal.
Louise’s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw accompanied
by a brief alleging that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. See Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967) (stating that court-appointed counsel who believes appeal is wholly
frivolous should file motion to withdraw “accompanied by a brief referring to anything in the
1 See Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001. We refer to appellant by a pseudonym. See
id. § 109.002(d).
record that might arguably support the appeal”); In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 & n.10 (Tex.
2016) (per curiam) (approving use of Anders procedure in appeals from termination of parental
rights). Counsel’s brief meets the requirements of Anders by presenting a professional
evaluation of the record demonstrating that there are no arguable grounds for reversal to be
advanced on appeal. See 386 U.S. at 744; 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 parental-rights termination case). Counsel has certified to this Court that he
provided Louise with a copy of the Anders brief and motion to withdraw as counsel and a notice
of her right to file a pro se brief. Appellee in this case, The Department of Family and Protective
Services, filed a response indicating that it will not file a brief unless this Court requests one or
the Department itself deems a brief necessary following Louise’s filing of a brief. Louise has not
filed a brief to date.
Upon receipt of an Anders brief, we must conduct a full examination of the
proceedings to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75,
80 (1988). After reviewing the record and the briefing, we find nothing that would arguably
support a meritorious appeal. We thus agree with counsel that this appeal is frivolous and
without merit. We nevertheless deny counsel’s motion to withdraw. In P.M., the Supreme Court
of Texas explained that a parent’s right to counsel in termination suits extends to “all
proceedings in [the Supreme Court of Texas], including the filing of a petition for review.” See
520 S.W.3d at 27. Accordingly, counsel’s obligation to Louise has not yet been discharged. See
id. If Louise, after consulting with counsel, desires to file a petition for review, counsel should
timely file with the high court “a petition for review that satisfies the standards for an Anders
brief.” See id. at 27–28.
2
For the reasons stated herein, we affirm the order terminating Louise’s parental
rights and deny counsel’s motion to withdraw.
_________________________________________
Edward Smith, Justice
Before Chief Justice Rose, Justices Triana and Smith
Affirmed
Filed: December 31, 2019
3