in the Interest of E.L.W. ( 2022 )

In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
__________________
NO. 09-22-00111-CV
__________________
IN THE INTEREST OF E.L.W.
__________________________________________________________________
On Appeal from the 279th District Court
Jefferson County, Texas
Trial Cause No. F-239,383
__________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Mother and Father appeal from an order terminating their parental rights to
their eleven-month-old daughter, E.L.W. The trial court found, by clear and
convincing evidence, that statutory grounds exist for termination of Mother’s and
Father’s parental rights and that termination of their parental rights would be in the
best interest of the child. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), (F), (N),
(O), (2).
Mother’s and Father’s appointed attorneys submitted briefs in which both
attorneys contend that there are no meritorious issues for appeal and that the appeals
are frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); In re L.D.T., 161
1
S.W.3d 728, 730-31 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2005, no pet.) (Anders procedures
apply in parental-rights termination cases). The briefs present the attorneys’
professional evaluation of the record and explain why no arguable grounds exist to
overturn the trial court’s judgment. Both attorneys represented to the Court that they
gave Mother and Father a copy of the Anders brief they filed, notified both parents
of their right to file a pro se brief, and provided Mother and Father a copy of the
appellate record. The Court notified Mother and Father of their right to file a pro se
response and of the deadline for doing so. Neither Mother nor Father filed a response
with the Court.
We have independently evaluated the appellate record and the briefs filed by
Mother’s and Father’s court-appointed attorneys. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75,
80 (1988) (citing Anders, 386 U.S. at 744); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-
27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); In re K.R.C., 346 S.W.3d 618, 619 (Tex. App.—El Paso
2009, no pet.). Based on our review of the record, we have found nothing that would
arguably support an appeal and we agree that the appeals are frivolous and lack
merit. See Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 827-28 (“Due to the nature of Anders briefs, by
indicating in the opinion that it considered the issues raised in the briefs and
reviewed the record for reversible error but found none, the court of appeals met the
requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1.”); In re K.R.C., 346
S.W.3d at 619. Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment of new
2
counsel to re-brief this appeal. Cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim.
App. 1991).
We affirm the trial court’s order terminating Mother’s and Father’s parental
rights. We deny the motions to withdraw filed by Mother’s and Father’s court-
appointed appellate attorneys because the right to counsel in suits seeking the
termination of parental rights extends through the exhaustion or waiver of all
appeals. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 107.016(2)(B); In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27
(Tex. 2016). Accordingly, the obligation of Mother’s counsel to Mother and the
obligation to Father’s counsel to Father have not been discharged. See In re P.M.,
520 S.W.3d at 27. Should Mother or Father decide to pursue an appeal to the
Supreme Court of Texas, their respective counsel’s obligation can be met “by filing
a petition for review that satisfies the standards for an Anders brief.” See id. at 27-
28.
AFFIRMED.
_________________________
LEANNE JOHNSON
Justice
Submitted on August 15, 2022
Opinion Delivered August 18, 2022
Before Kreger, Horton and Johnson, JJ.
3