In the Interest of P.W.O., a Child v. the State of Texas ( 2024 )

IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-23-00366-CV
IN THE INTEREST OF P.W.O., A CHILD
From the County Court at Law
Bosque County, Texas
Trial Court No. CV22-271
MEMORANDUM OPINION
The father of P.W.O. appealed a judgment of the trial court in a suit brought by
the Department of Family and Protective Services. See TEX. FAM. CODE § 263.405. In its
final order, the trial court did not terminate the father's parental rights, but appointed the
paternal grandmother the permanent managing conservator of the child. The father and
mother 1 were named possessory conservators. Father's court-appointed appellate
attorney has filed a brief containing a professional evaluation of the record and alleging
that there are no arguable grounds to be advanced on appeal. Counsel concluded that
1
The mother did not appeal the trial court's judgment.
the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967). See In re E.L.Y., 69 S.W.3d
838, 841 (Tex. App.—Waco 2002, order) (applying Anders to termination appeals); In the
Interest of Z.N., No. 10-17-00177-CV, 2017 Tex. App. LEXIS 8890 at *2, 2017 WL 4182482(Tex. App.—Waco Sep. 20, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op.) (applying Anders to final order in
which trial court did not terminate mother's parental rights, but appointed maternal
grandmother as children's managing conservator and children's parents as possessory
conservators).
Counsel certified that a copy of her brief was delivered by email to the father, 2 that
she had provided him a copy of the record, and advised him of his right to examine the
record and to file a pro se brief on his own behalf. This Court also informed the father of
his rights and ability to file a response with this Court. The father has not filed a response.
Counsel included a recitation of the facts in the Anders brief and asserted that
counsel reviewed the record for any potentially meritorious issues and determined there
is no non-frivolous issue to raise in this appeal. Counsel's brief evidences a professional
evaluation of the record, and we conclude that counsel performed the duties required of
appointed counsel. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403,
406-408 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).
2
The record reflects that the father refused to provide his address to his counsel or the department. He did not appear
for the final trial.
In the Interest of P.W.O., a Child Page 2
Upon the filing of the Anders brief, as the reviewing appellate court, it is our duty
to independently examine the record to decide whether counsel is correct in determining
that an appeal is frivolous. See In the Interest of G.P., 503 S.W.3d 531, 536 (Tex. App.—
Waco 2016, pet. denied). Arguments are frivolous when they "cannot conceivably
persuade the court." McCoy v. Court of Appeals, 486 U.S. 429, 436, 108 S. Ct. 1895, 100 L.
Ed. 2d 440 (1988).
Having carefully reviewed the entire record and the Anders brief, we agree with
counsel that the appeal is frivolous. See In re D.D., 279 S.W.3d 849, 850 (Tex. App.—Dallas
2009, pet. denied). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's order.
CONCLUSION
Having found no potentially meritorious issues presented in this appeal, we affirm
the judgment of the trial court.
TOM GRAY
Chief Justice
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Johnson, and
Justice Smith
Affirmed
Opinion delivered and filed February 22, 2024
CV06
In the Interest of P.W.O., a Child Page 3