C. R. v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services ( 2022 )

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-22-00262-CV
C. R., Appellant
v.
Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee
FROM THE 419TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY
NO. D-1-FM-20-004849, THE HONORABLE JAN SOIFER, JUDGE PRESIDING
MEMORANDUM OPINION
C.R. appeals from the trial court’s final decree terminating his parental rights
to his child. See Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001. Following a jury trial, the trial court rendered
judgment on the jury’s verdict, finding by clear and convincing evidence that several statutory
grounds existed for terminating C.R.’s parental rights and that termination of those rights was in
the child’s best interest. See id. § 161.001(b)(1)(E), (O), (2).
On appeal, C.R.’s court-appointed attorney has filed an Anders brief concluding
that his appeal is frivolous and without merit. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744
(1967); In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 (Tex. 2016) (per curiam) (approving use of Anders
procedure in appeal from termination of parental rights). The brief meets the requirements of
Anders by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating why there are no
arguable grounds 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).
C.R.’s counsel has certified to this Court that she has provided C.R. with copies of the Anders
brief, the clerk’s record, and the reporter’s record and that she has advised C.R. of his right to
file a pro se brief. To date, C.R. has not filed a pro se brief. The Department of Family and
Protective Services has a filed a response, stating that it will not file a brief unless requested by
this Court.
Upon receiving an Anders brief, we must conduct a full examination of the record
to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988);
Taylor, 160 S.W.3d at 647. We have conducted an independent review of the entire record,
including the Anders brief submitted on C.R.’s behalf, and have found nothing in the record
that might arguably support an appeal. Our review included the trial court’s endangerment
finding under part (E) of Section 161.001(b)(1) of the Family Code, and we have found no
nonfrivolous issues that could be raised on appeal with respect to that finding. See In re N.G.,
577 S.W.3d 230 237 (Tex. 2019). We agree that the appeal is frivolous and without merit.
Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s final decree terminating C.R.’s parental rights.
__________________________________________
Chari L. Kelly, Justice
Before Justices Goodwin, Baker, and Kelly
Affirmed
Filed: October 19, 2022
2