in the Interest of J.W., a Child ( 2022 )

In the
Court of Appeals
Second Appellate District of Texas
at Fort Worth
___________________________
No. 02-22-00161-CV
___________________________
IN THE INTEREST OF J.W., A CHILD
On Appeal from the 233rd District Court
Tarrant County, Texas
Trial Court No. 233-702194-21
Before Sudderth, C.J.; Wallach and Walker, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion on Rehearing by Justice Wallach
MEMORANDUM OPINION ON REHEARING
On the court’s own motion, during our plenary power, we withdraw our prior
memorandum opinion and judgment of September 22, 2022 and substitute the
following opinion (and corresponding judgment).
Appellant S.G. appeals from the district court’s order terminating her parental
rights to her son, J.W. S.G.’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed an Anders
brief concluding that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. See Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967); In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 &
n.10 (Tex. 2016) (approving use of Anders procedure in appeals from termination of
parental rights because it “strikes an important balance between the defendant’s . . .
constitutional right to counsel on appeal and counsel’s obligation not to prosecute
frivolous appeals” (citations omitted)).
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 Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; Taylor v. Tex. Dep’t of
Protective & Regul. Servs., 160 S.W.3d 641, 646–47 (Tex. App.—Austin 2005, pet.
denied). S.G.’s counsel has certified to this court that he provided S.G. with a copy of
the Anders brief and informed her of her right to examine the appellate record and to
file a pro se brief. We gave S.G. until June 22, 2022 to notify us if she wished to file a
pro se response to the Anders brief. We received no response. The Department
notified us that it would not file a brief. On September 29, 2022, seven days after our
2
opinion was handed down, we received from S.G. a request for access to the appellate
record. We now deny S.G.’s request.1
Upon receiving an Anders brief, we must conduct an independent examination
of the record to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. See Penson v. Ohio,
488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S. Ct. 346, 350 (1988); Taylor, 160 S.W.3d at 647. We have
reviewed the entire record, including the Anders brief submitted on S.G.’s behalf. Our
review of the record assures us that any issue that S.G. might raise would be frivolous.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. S.G.’s counsel remains appointed
in this case through any proceedings in the Supreme Court unless otherwise relieved
of these duties. See P.M., 520 S.W.3d at 27.
/s/ Mike Wallach
Mike Wallach
Justice
Delivered: October 27, 2022
1
We also deny the subsequent rehearing motion filed by S.G.’s counsel.
3