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

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-20-00596-CV
J. D., Appellant
v.
Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee
FROM THE 201ST DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY
NO. D-1-FM-19-007033, THE HONORABLE TIM SULAK, JUDGE PRESIDING
MEMORANDUM OPINION
J.D. appeals from the trial court’s final decree terminating his parental rights
to his four children. See Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001. After a bench trial, the trial court found
by clear and convincing evidence that statutory grounds for terminating his parental rights
existed and that termination of those rights was in the children’s best interest. See id.
§ 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), (O), (2).
On appeal, J.D.’s court-appointed attorney has filed a motion to withdraw
supported by an Anders 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 (Tex. 2016) (per
curiam) (approving use of Anders procedure in appeal from termination of parental rights).
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). J.D.’s counsel has certified to this Court that he has provided
J.D. with a copy of the Anders brief and motion to withdraw and advised him of his right to
examine the appellate record and to file a pro se brief. To date, J.D. has not filed a pro se brief.
The Department of Family and Protective Services has filed a response to the Anders brief,
stating that it will not file a brief unless requested by this Court.
Upon receiving an Anders brief, we must conduct a full examination of the record
to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988);
Taylor, 160 S.W.3d at 647. We have conducted an independent review of the entire record,
including the Anders brief submitted on J.D.’s behalf, and have found nothing in the record
that might arguably support an appeal. We agree the appeal is frivolous and without merit.
Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s decree terminating J.D.’s parental rights. Counsel’s
motion to withdraw is denied.1
__________________________________________
Chari L. Kelly, Justice
Before Justices Goodwin, Triana, and Kelly
Affirmed
Filed: April 1, 2021
1
The Texas Supreme Court has held that the right to counsel in suits seeking the
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 (Tex. 2016) (per
curiam). Accordingly, counsel’s obligation to J.D. has not yet been discharged. See id. If after
consulting with counsel, J.D. desires to file a petition for review, his counsel should timely file
with the Texas Supreme Court “a petition for review that satisfies the standards for an Anders
brief.” See id. at 27-28.
2