J. N. v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-22-00789-CV
J. N., Appellant
v.
Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee
FROM THE 340TH DISTRICT COURT OF TOM GREEN COUNTY
NO. C190072CPS, THE HONORABLE ELIZABETH WATKINS, JUDGE PRESIDING
MEMORANDUM OPINION
J.N. appeals from the final order terminating her parental rights to her daughter
S.R., who was nine years old when the order was signed. An associate judge held a three-day
hearing, J.N. requested a de novo hearing, and the district court reviewed the record de novo and
rendered judgment adopting the associate judge’s findings and conclusions. The court found by
clear and convincing evidence that termination is in S.R.’s best interest and that J.N. had
endangered S.R.’s well-being and had failed to comply with a court order that established
necessary actions for her to regain custody after S.R.’s removal for abuse or neglect. See Tex.
Fam. Code § 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), (O), (b)(2). J.N. timely filed her notice of appeal.
J.N.’s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw accompanied by a
brief concluding that any appeal is frivolous and without merit. See Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967) (stating that court-appointed counsel who believes appeal is wholly
frivolous should file motion to withdraw “accompanied by a brief referring to anything in the
record that might arguably support the appeal”); 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). Counsel’s brief meets the Anders requirements by presenting a professional
evaluation of the record demonstrating that there are no arguable grounds for reversal to be
advanced on appeal. See 386 U.S. at 744; Taylor v. Texas Dep’t of Protective & Regul. Servs.,
160 S.W.3d 641, 646-47 (Tex. App.—Austin 2005, pet. denied) (applying Anders procedure in
termination case). Counsel has certified to this Court that he provided J.N. with a copy of the
Anders brief, his motion to withdraw as counsel, and a notice of J.N.’s right to file a pro se brief.
J.N. has not filed a brief.
Upon receipt of an Anders brief, we must conduct a full examination of the
proceedings to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75,
80 (1988). Having reviewed the record and the briefing, we find nothing that would arguably
support a meritorious appeal. We thus agree with counsel that the appeal is frivolous and
without merit.
We nevertheless deny counsel’s motion to withdraw. In P.M., the Texas Supreme
Court explained that a parent’s right to counsel in termination suits extends to “all proceedings in
[the Supreme Court of Texas], including the filing of a petition for review.” 520 S.W.3d at 27.
Accordingly, counsel’s obligation has not yet been discharged, and if J.N., after consulting with
counsel, desires to file a petition for review, counsel should timely file with the high court “a
petition for review that satisfies the standards for an Anders brief.” See id. at 27-28.
We therefore affirm the order terminating J.N.’s parental rights and deny
counsel’s motion to withdraw.
2
__________________________________________
Edward Smith, Justice
Before Justices Baker, Smith, and Jones*
Affirmed
Filed: March 17, 2023
*Before J. Woodfin Jones, Chief Justice (Retired), Third Court of Appeals, sitting by
assignment. See Tex. Gov’t Code § 74.003(b).
3