in the Interest of S. D. R., a Child

COURT OF APPEALS
EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
EL PASO, TEXAS
§ No. 08-21-00165-CV
IN THE INTEREST OF
§ Appeal from the
S.D.R.,
§ 65th District Court
A CHILD.
§ of El Paso County, Texas
§ (TC# 2019DCM7240)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Mother D.M.1 appeals a trial court judgment terminating her parental rights to S.D.R. We
affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Mother is represented on appeal by court-appointed counsel who has filed a brief in
accordance with the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 741-44 (1967). Court-
appointed counsel has concluded that, after a thorough review of the record, Mother’s appeal is
frivolous and without merit.
In Anders, the Supreme Court recognized that counsel, though appointed to represent the
appellant in an appeal from a criminal conviction, had no duty to pursue a frivolous matter on
appeal. Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. Thus, counsel was permitted to withdraw after informing the court
of his conclusion and the effort made in arriving at that conclusion. Id. The procedures set forth in
1
We refer to the parties by pseudonyms. See TEX.R.APP.P. 9.8(b)(2).
Anders apply to an appeal from a case involving the termination of parental rights when court-
appointed counsel has determined that the appeal is frivolous. See In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27
n.10 (Tex. 2016)(per curiam)(recognizing that Anders procedures apply in parental termination
cases); In re J.B., 296 S.W.3d 618, 619 (Tex.App.—El Paso 2009, no pet.).
Counsel’s brief meets the requirements of Anders by containing a professional evaluation
of the record and demonstrating that there are no arguable grounds for reversal of the termination
order. Upon receiving an Anders brief, we are required to conduct a full examination of all the
proceedings to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80
(1988). We have thoroughly reviewed the entire record, including the Anders brief, and we have
found nothing that would arguably support an appeal. We agree with counsel’s professional
assessment that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. Because there is nothing in the record
that might arguably support the appeal, a further discussion of the arguable grounds advanced in
the brief filed by court-appointed counsel would add nothing to the jurisprudence of the state. The
final order terminating Mother’s parental rights is affirmed.
In the prayer section of the Anders brief, counsel for Mother asks this Court to relieve her
of this appointment and allow her to withdraw. Based on Texas Supreme Court precedent, we
cannot do so at this time. A parent’s statutory right to counsel in suits seeking termination of
parental rights extends to all proceedings in the Texas Supreme Court, including the filing of a
petition for review, and counsel’s belief that the appeal is frivolous does not constitute “good
cause” for withdrawal. In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d at 27; see TEX.FAM.CODE ANN. § 107.016(3) (in a
suit by a governmental entity seeking the termination of parental rights, an attorney appointed to
serve as an attorney ad litem for a parent or alleged father continues to serve in that capacity until
the suit is dismissed, the date all appeals from the termination order are exhausted, or the date the
2
attorney is relieved of his duties or replaced by another attorney after a finding of good cause is
rendered by the court).
Accordingly, we must deny counsel’s motion to withdraw. See In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d at
27. In the event Mother advises appointed counsel that she wishes to challenge our decision by
filing a petition for review, “counsel’s obligations can be satisfied by filing a petition for review
that satisfies the standards for an Anders brief.” Id. at 27-28. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is
denied.
YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Chief Justice
February 4, 2022
Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox, and Alley, JJ.
3