In the Interest of A. F. AKA A. N. F. a Child v. Department of Family and Protective Service ( 2024 )

Opinion issued July 9, 2024
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-24-00075-CV
———————————
IN RE A.F. A/K/A A.N.F., A CHILD
On Appeal from the 313th District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Case No. 2018-05250J
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Father appeals the trial court’s order terminating his parental rights to A.F.
a/k/a A.N.F. Father’s court-appointed appellate counsel filed a notice of appeal on
the father’s behalf and has since filed a brief stating in his professional opinion that
the appeal is without merit and that there are no arguable grounds for reversal. See
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). Because we find no meritorious
issues after an independent review of the record, we affirm the trial court’s
judgment.
The Anders procedures apply in termination of parental rights cases. In re
J.S., 584 S.W.3d 622, 638 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2019, no pet.). Counsel
filed a brief stating that he has complied with all Anders requirements. The Clerk
of this Court attempted to independently notify Father that his counsel had filed an
Anders brief, that he had the right to file a pro se response, and that he was entitled
to a copy of the appellate record to assist in preparing his response. The letter was
returned undeliverable. This Court ordered father’s counsel to file with the court a
copy of his notice to father of father’s right to file a pro se response, an updated
address for father, if any, and an updated confirmation of father’s receipt of the
record. On May 14, 2024, Father’s counsel filed copies of two letters that were
mailed and emailed to father, notifying him of his right to file a pro se response to
the Anders brief and including a form motion for access to the record. Father’s
counsel also filed copies of two emails providing father with copies of the
appellate record. Father has not filed a response.
Counsel’s Anders brief states his professional opinion that no arguable
grounds for reversal of the trial court’s termination order exist and that any appeal
would therefore lack merit and be frivolous. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744.
Counsel’s brief meets the minimum Anders requirements by presenting a
2
professional evaluation of the record and stating why there are no arguable grounds
for reversal on appeal. See id.; In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2008) (stating purpose of Anders brief is to assure appellate court that
appointed attorney has made thorough and conscientious examination of record,
provided court with appropriate facts of case and procedural history, and pointed
out any arguable points of error).
When we receive an Anders brief from the appellant’s appointed attorney
who asserts that no arguable grounds for appeal exist, we must determine that issue
independently by conducting our own review of the entire record. Johnson v. Dep’t
of Family & Protective Servs., No. 01-08-00749-CV, 2010 WL 5186806, at *1
(Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Dec. 23, 2010, no pet.) (mem. op.). If we
determine that arguable grounds for appeal exist, we abate the appeal and remand
the case to the trial court to allow the appointed attorney to withdraw. Id. at *2.
Then, the trial court appoints another attorney to present all arguable grounds for
appeal. Id. But if, after independently reviewing the record, we conclude that the
appeal is frivolous, we may affirm the trial court’s termination judgment by issuing
an opinion explaining that we have reviewed the record and found no reversible
error. Id. The parent may challenge that holding by filing a petition for review with
the Texas Supreme Court. Id.
3
We have independently reviewed the entire record and counsel’s Anders
brief and agree with counsel’s assessment that the appeal is frivolous and without
merit. In re A.M., 495 S.W.3d 573, 582 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2016,
pets. denied). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s termination decree as to
father.
We note that father’s court-appointed appellate counsel maintains his duty to
his client through the exhaustion or waiver of “all appeals.” TEX. FAM. CODE
§ 107.016(3)(B). Accordingly, if father wishes to pursue an appeal to the Supreme
Court of Texas, “appointed counsel’s obligations can be satisfied by filing a
petition for review that satisfies the standards for an Anders brief.” In re P.M., 520
S.W.3d 24, 27–28 (Tex. 2016).
Conclusion
We affirm the trial court’s order terminating Father’s parental rights to A.F.
a/k/a A.N.F.
Peter Kelly
Justice
Panel consists of Chief Justice Adams and Justices Kelly and Goodman.
4