In the Interest B.H. and B.H., Children v. the State of Texas ( 2023 )

Opinion filed September 21, 2023
In The
Eleventh Court of Appeals
__________
No. 11-23-00142-CV
__________
IN THE INTEREST OF B.H. AND B.H., CHILDREN
On Appeal from the 326th District Court
Taylor County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 10776-CX
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This is an appeal from an order in which the trial court terminated the parental
rights of the mother and the father of B.H. and B.H. The trial court found, by clear
and convincing evidence, that the mother and the father executed unrevoked or
irrevocable affidavits of relinquishment of their parental rights for each child
pursuant to subsection 161.001(b)(1)(K) of the Texas Family Code. See TEX. FAM.
CODE. ANN. § 161.001(b)(1)(K) (West 2022). The trial court also found by clear
and convincing evidence that termination of the parental rights of both parents were
in the children’s best interest. Id. § 161.001(b)(2). Both parents appealed. We
affirm.
The court-appointed attorneys for both the mother and the father have filed
briefs in which they professionally and conscientiously examine the record and
applicable law and conclude that the appeals are frivolous and without merit. The
briefs meet the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by
presenting a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating why there are
no arguable grounds to be advanced. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406–08
(Tex. Crim. App. 2008); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel
Op.] 1978).
Each attorney has provided the mother and the father with a copy of the
respective briefs and motions, and a letter explaining to the mother and the father
their right to review the record and file a pro se response. Counsel for the father sent
the record to the father by regular and certified mail but the mail was refused.
Counsel for the mother provided a pro se motion for access to the appellate record
by regular and certified mail but the mail was also refused. Repeated efforts were
also made by this court to ensure access to the court by the mother and the father
and to apprise the parties of the pendency of this appeal and of the actions by counsel
on appeal. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 318–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).
Neither the mother nor the father has filed a response to either counsel’s brief.
We conclude that the mother’s counsel and the father’s counsel have satisfied
their duties under Anders, Schulman, and Kelly. Following the procedures outlined
in Anders and Schulman, we have independently reviewed the record in this cause,
and we agree that both the mother’s appeal and the father’s appeal are without merit.
In that regard, both the mother and the father executed an affidavit of voluntary
2
relinquishment of parental rights with respect to both children. See FAM.
§ 161.001(b)(1)(K).
Counsel for both the mother and the father have motions to withdraw in
addition to their briefs. We deny both motions to withdraw in light of the Texas
Supreme Court’s decision in In re P.M. because neither counsel has shown “good
cause” other than the determination that an appeal would be frivolous. See 520
S.W.3d 24, 27 (Tex. 2016) (“[A]n Anders motion to withdraw brought in the court
of appeals, in the absence of additional grounds for withdrawal, may be premature.”)
In parental termination cases, court-appointed counsel’s duty to his or her client
generally extends “through the exhaustion of appeals” “including the filing of a
petition for review” in the Texas Supreme Court. Id. “[A]ppointed counsel’s
obligations can be satisfied by filing a petition for review that satisfies the standards
for an Anders brief.” Id. at 27–28.
This Court’s Ruling
We deny counsels’ motions to withdraw, and we affirm the order of the trial
court.
JOHN M. BAILEY
CHIEF JUSTICE
September 21, 2023
Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,
Trotter, J., and Williams, J.
3