T. Y. J. v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-18-00350-CV
T. Y. J., Appellant
v.
Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 261ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NO. D-1-FM-16-005029, HONORABLE ORLINDA NARANJO, JUDGE PRESIDING
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant T.Y.J. appeals from the trial court’s order terminating her parental rights
to her child. See Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001. Following a bench trial, the trial court found by clear
and convincing evidence that statutory grounds existed for terminating T.Y.J.’s parental rights and
that termination was in the child’s best interest. See id. §§ 161.001(b)(2), 161.003.
Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a brief concluding that the appeal
is frivolous and without merit. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967); In re P.M.,
520 S.W.3d 24, 27 & n.10 (Tex. 2016) (per curiam) (approving use of Anders procedure in appeals
from termination of parental rights because it “strikes an important balance between the defendant’s
constitutional right to counsel on appeal and counsel’s obligation not to prosecute frivolous
appeals” (citations omitted)). The brief meets the requirements of Anders by presenting a professional
evaluation of the record and demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced on
appeal. See 386 U.S. at 744; Taylor v. Texas Dep’t of Protective & Regulatory Servs., 160 S.W.3d
641, 646–47 (Tex. App.—Austin 2005, pet. denied) (applying Anders procedure in parental-
termination case). Appellant’s counsel has certified to this Court that he has provided appellant
with a copy of the Anders brief and information regarding where she may obtain a copy of the
record and has informed appellant of her right to file a pro se brief. The Department of Family and
Protective Services has filed a response to the Anders brief waiving its right to file an appellee’s brief
but requesting that it be afforded an opportunity to respond to a pro se brief filed by appellant. To
date, no pro se brief has been filed.
We have conducted a full examination of all of the proceedings to determine whether
the appeal is wholly frivolous, as we must when presented with an Anders brief. See Penson v. Ohio,
488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988). After reviewing the record and the Anders brief, we find nothing in the
record that would arguably support T.Y.J.’s appeal. We agree with appellant’s counsel that the
appeal is frivolous and without merit. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s order terminating the
parental rights of T.Y.J.1
1
The Anders brief includes a request by counsel to withdraw. The Texas Supreme Court
has held that the 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.” In re P.M.,
520 S.W.3d 24, 27–28 (Tex. 2016) (per curiam). Accordingly, counsel’s obligation to T. Y. J. has
not yet been discharged and, therefore, counsel may not withdraw at this juncture. See id. If after
consulting with counsel appellant desires to file a petition for review, her counsel should timely
file with the Texas Supreme Court “a petition for review that satisfies the standards for an Anders
brief.” See id.
2
__________________________________________
David Puryear, Justice
Before Justices Puryear, Goodwin, and Bourland
Affirmed
Filed: October 11, 2018
3