In the Interest of M.R.M., B.E.M., and B.S.M., Children v. the State of Texas ( 2024 )

IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-24-00012-CV
IN THE INTEREST OF M.R.M., B.E.M., AND B.S.M., CHILDREN
From the County Court at Law
Hill County, Texas
Trial Court No. CV174-23CCL
MEMORANDUM OPINION
The father and mother of M.R.M., B.E.M., and B.S.M. each filed a notice of appeal
of a judgment terminating their parental rights in this proceeding. See, generally, TEX.
FAM. CODE § 161.001. On February 9, 2024, the father, D.M., filed a motion to dismiss the
appeal stating that the parties had reached an agreement as to the father and that he no
longer desires to continue with the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1). We grant the
motion to dismiss as to the appeal by the father, D.M.
The mother’s appointed counsel has filed an Anders brief asserting that the appeal
presents no issue of arguable merit. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396,
18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967). The procedures set forth in Anders v. California are generally
applicable to appeals of judgments that terminate parental rights. In re E.L.Y., 69 S.W.3d
838, 841 (Tex. App.—Waco 2002, order). Counsel advised the mother that counsel had
filed the brief pursuant to Anders and that she had the right to file a pro se response with
this Court. The mother was also advised of her right to review the record prior to filing
a response. The mother did not file a pro se response with this Court.
Counsel included a recitation of the procedural history and relevant facts in the
Anders brief and asserted that counsel had reviewed the record for any potentially
meritorious issues, including jurisdictional issues, and determined there are no non-
frivolous issues to raise in this appeal. Counsel's brief discusses the sufficiency of the
evidence as to each of the predicate acts upon which the termination was granted,
including Section 161.001(b)(1)(D) and (E), as well as best interest. Counsel's brief
includes 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).
Upon the filing of an 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 re 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).
In the Interest of M.R.M., B.E.M., and B.S.M., Children Page 2
Having carefully reviewed the entire record and the Anders brief, we have
determined that the appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's
judgment.
CONCLUSION
The appeal filed by the father is dismissed. As to the mother, having found the
appeal is frivolous, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
TOM GRAY
Chief Justice
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Johnson, and
Justice Smith
Dismissed in part; Otherwise affirmed
Opinion delivered and filed June 13, 2024
[CV06]
In the Interest of M.R.M., B.E.M., and B.S.M., Children Page 3