In the Interest of K. Z. C., a Child v. the State of Texas ( 2023 )

NO. 12-23-00010-CV
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT
TYLER, TEXAS
§ APPEAL FROM THE
IN THE INTEREST OF
§ COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2
K.Z.C., A CHILD
§ ANGELINA COUNTY, TEXAS
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM
D.C. appeals the termination of her parental rights. D.C.’s counsel filed a brief in
compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967) and
Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). We affirm.
BACKGROUND
D.C. is the mother of K.Z.C. 1 On June 17, 2021, the Department of Family and Protective
Services (the Department) filed an original petition for protection of a child, for conservatorship,
and for termination of the parental rights of D.C. The Department was appointed temporary
managing conservator of K.Z.C., and D.C. was allowed limited access to, and possession of,
K.Z.C.
The evidence at trial showed that D.C. testified positive for marijuana, PCP, and
methamphetamine when she was approximately five months pregnant with K.Z.C. In addition,
the evidence showed that D.C. failed to complete a court-ordered substance abuse treatment
program. D.C. again tested positive for illegal substances in July and September 2022, after
K.Z.C.’s birth. The evidence also showed that D.C. signed a voluntary relinquishment of her
parental rights. K.Z.C. is in a foster home with his brothers, and he is doing well in that placement.
1
K.Z.C.’s father is deceased.
Furthermore, the evidence showed that K.Z.C.’s maternal great aunt wishes to adopt him and his
brothers.
At the conclusion of the trial, the trial court found, by clear and convincing evidence, that
D.C. knowingly placed or allowed the child to remain in conditions that endangered his physical
or emotional wellbeing, knowingly engaged in conduct that endangered the child’s physical or
emotional wellbeing, executed an unrevoked or irrevocable affidavit of relinquishment of her
parental rights, failed to comply with the provisions of a court order that specifically established
the actions necessary for her to obtain the return of the child, and used a controlled substance in a
manner that endangered K.Z.C.’s health or safety, and that termination of D.C.’s parental rights is
in K.Z.C.’s best interest. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. §§ 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), (K), (O), (P) (West
2022). Based on these findings, the trial court ordered that the parent-child relationship between
D.C. and K.Z.C. be terminated. This appeal followed.
ANALYSIS PURSUANT TO ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA
D.C.’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders, stating that he diligently reviewed
the appellate record and is of the opinion that the record reflects no reversible error and that there
is no error upon which an appeal can be predicated. This Court has previously held that Anders
procedures apply in parental rights termination cases when the Department has moved for
termination. See In re K.S.M., 61 S.W.3d 632, 634 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2001, no pet.). In
compliance with Anders, counsel’s brief presents a professional evaluation of the record
demonstrating why there are no reversible grounds on appeal and referencing any grounds that
might arguably support the appeal. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; Mays v. State,
904 S.W.2d 920, 922-23 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1995, no pet.).
As a reviewing court, we must conduct an independent evaluation of the record to
determine whether counsel is correct in concluding that the appeal is frivolous. See Stafford v.
State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Mays, 904 S.W.2d at 923. We have carefully
reviewed the appellate record and counsel’s brief. We find nothing in the record that might
arguably support the appeal. 2 See Taylor v. Tex. Dep’t of Protective & Regulatory Servs., 160
S.W.3d 641, 646-47 (Tex. App.—Austin 2005, pet. denied).
2
Counsel for D.C. certified that he provided D.C. with a copy of the brief and informed her that she had the
right to file her own brief and took concrete measures to facilitate her review of the record. See Kelly v. State, 436
2
DISPOSITION
We agree with D.C.’s counsel that the appeal is wholly frivolous. 3 Accordingly, we affirm
the trial court’s judgment. See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2.
Opinion delivered March 22, 2023.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.
S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In the Matter of C.F., No. 03-18-00008-CV, 2018 WL 2750007, at *1
(Tex. App.—Austin June 8, 2018, no pet.) (mem. op.). D.C. was given the time to file her own brief, but the time for
filing such a brief has expired, and we have not received a pro se brief.
3
After filing an Anders brief, D.C.’s attorney did not file a motion to withdraw, and counsel’s obligations to
D.C. have not yet been discharged. See In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 (Tex. 2016) (holding that the right to counsel
in suits seeking termination of parental rights extends “to all proceedings in [the Texas Supreme Court], including the
filing of a petition for review.”). If D.C., after consulting with counsel, desires to file a petition for review, counsel
should timely file with the Texas Supreme Court “a petition for review that satisfies the standards for an Anders brief.”
Id. at 27-28; see A.C. v. Tex. Dep’t of Family & Protective Servs., No. 03-16-00543-CV, 2016 WL 5874880, at *1
n.2 (Tex. App.—Austin Oct. 5, 2016, no pet.) (mem. op.).
3
COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS
JUDGMENT
MARCH 22, 2023
NO. 12-23-00010-CV
IN THE INTEREST OF K.Z.C., A CHILD
Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2
of Angelina County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. CV-01125-21-06)
THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and brief filed herein,
and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that there was no error in the judgment.
It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the judgment of
the court below be in all things affirmed, and that the decision be certified to the court below for
observance.
By per curiam opinion.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.