in the Interest of J.W. and L.W., Children

IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-22-00299-CV
IN THE INTEREST OF J.W. AND L.W., CHILDREN
From the 272nd District Court
Brazos County, Texas
Trial Court No. 21-000066-CV-272
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Elizabeth appeals from an order that terminated the parent-child relationship
between her and her children, J.W. and L.W. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. §§ 161.001, 161.003.
Elizabeth's appointed counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California asserting
that the appeal presents no issues 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 are applicable
to appeals of orders terminating parental rights. In re E.L.Y., 69 S.W.3d 838, 841 (Tex.
App.—Waco 2002, order). Counsel advised Elizabeth that counsel had filed the brief
pursuant to Anders and that Elizabeth had the right to review the record and file a pro se
response on her own behalf. Counsel also informed Elizabeth that she could request
access to the record by contacting the Court. Elizabeth did not request the record or file
a response with this Court.
Counsel included a detailed recitation of the facts in the Anders brief and asserted
that counsel reviewed the record for any potentially meritorious issues and determined
there is no non-frivolous issue to raise in this appeal. Counsel's brief discusses the
sufficiency of the evidence relating to Section 161.001(b)(1)(D) and (E) 1 and Section
161.003 as well as the best interest of the children. Counsel's brief evidences 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 the 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 the Interest of 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).
Having carefully reviewed the entire record and the Anders brief, we agree with
counsel that the appeal is frivolous. See In re D.D., 279 S.W.3d 849, 850 (Tex. App.—Dallas
1
An Anders brief must include a review of Section 161.001(b)(1)(D) or (E) if the termination was granted on either
or both of those subsections pursuant to In re N.G., 577 S.W.3d 230, 235-36 (Tex. 2019).
In the Interest of J.W. and L.W., Children Page 2
2009, pet. denied). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's order of termination.
CONCLUSION
Having found no meritorious issues presented in this appeal, we affirm the
judgment of the trial court.
TOM GRAY
Chief Justice
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Johnson, and
Justice Smith
Affirmed
Opinion delivered and filed November 30, 2022
CV06
In the Interest of J.W. and L.W., Children Page 3