In the Interest of G.D.B., a Child v. the State of Texas ( 2024 )

Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-23-00622-CV
IN THE INTEREST OF G.D.B., a Child
From the 225th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2022-PA-00927
Honorable Lisa Jarrett, Judge Presiding
Opinion by: Irene Rios, Justice
Sitting: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
Irene Rios, Justice
Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice
Delivered and Filed: March 20, 2024
AFFIRMED; MOTION TO WITHDRAW DENIED
Appellant Mother appeals the trial court’s order terminating her parental rights to G.D.B.1
The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (“the Department”) filed this suit,
seeking termination of the parent-child relationship between the child and Mother. After a bench
trial, the trial court found by clear and convincing evidence three statutory grounds 2 to terminate
Mother’s parental rights and that termination of her parental rights is in G.D.B.’s best interest.
Mother timely appealed the trial court’s order.
Mother’s court-appointed appellate attorney filed a brief in which she concluded there are
no meritorious issues to be raised on appeal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); In re
1
To protect the identity of a minor child in an appeal from an order terminating parental rights, we refer to appellant
as “Mother” and the child by its initials or as “the child.” See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 109.002(d); TEX. R. APP.
P. 9.8(b)(2).
2
The trial court found termination of Mother’s parental rights warranted under subsections 161.001(b)(1)(D), (O),
and (P) of the Texas Family Code. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN § 161.001(b)(1)(D), (O), (P).
04-23-00622-CV
P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 n.10 (Tex. 2016) (stating Anders procedures protect indigent parents’
statutory right to counsel on appeal in parental rights termination cases and apply in those cases).
Counsel certified she sent Mother a copy of the brief and a letter advising of her rights to review
the record and to file a pro se brief. Counsel also provided Mother a form to use to request access
to the record. In addition, counsel filed a motion to withdraw. This court issued an order abating
counsel’s motion to withdraw and setting deadlines for Mother to request access to the record and
to file a pro se brief. Mother did not request access to the appellate record or file a pro se brief.
We have thoroughly reviewed the record and counsel’s Anders brief. The record
establishes by clear and convincing evidence the grounds for termination and that termination is
in the child’s best interest. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 161.001(b); In re J.O.A., 283 S.W.3d 336,
344–45 (Tex. 2009); In re A.V., 113 S.W.3d 355, 362 (Tex. 2003). Upon a thorough review of the
record, we conclude the evidence is legally and factually sufficient to support the termination order
and there are no other arguably meritorious grounds for appeal. Therefore, we affirm the trial
court’s termination order.
Counsel filed a motion to withdraw in conjunction with her Anders brief. We deny
counsel’s motion to withdraw because it does not assert any ground for withdrawal apart from
counsel’s conclusion that the appeal is frivolous. See In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d at 27. Counsel’s
duty to her client extends through the exhaustion or waiver of all appeals, including the filing of a
petition for review in the Texas Supreme Court. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 107.016(2)(B); In
re P.M., 520 S.W.3d at 27. After this court has rendered its decision, appointed counsel’s
obligations to her client may be met by filing a petition for review that satisfies the standards for
an Anders brief. In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d at 27–28, 28 n.14.
Irene Rios, Justice
-2-