TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-15-00359-CV
W. T. W., Appellant
v.
Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF RUNNELS COUNTY, 119TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NO. 789, HONORABLE BEN WOODWARD, JUDGE PRESIDING
MEMORANDUM OPINION
On May 14, 2015, appellant W.T.W was present and was represented by appointed
counsel at a trial to determine whether his parental rights to his child should be terminated. A copy
of W.T.W.’s 2008 judgment of conviction for aggravated sexual assault of a child was entered
without objection. The judgment reflected a sentence of fifty years imprisonment. The court heard
evidence of W.T.W.’s desire that the child be placed with a member of his family. The caseworker
for the Department testified about her attempts to find a family member of W.T.W. with whom the
child might be placed and of the unsuitability of each of those potential placements due to criminal
history or instability. The caseworker further testified that she believed it was in the best interest
of the child that the parental rights of W.T.W. be terminated. The trial court signed an order
terminating appellant W.T.W.’s parental rights to his child, finding that W.T.W knowingly engaged
in criminal conduct that has resulted in his conviction and imprisonment and his inability to care for
the child for at least two years from the date of filing of the termination petition, and that termination
was in the best interest of the child. See Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001(1)(Q), (2).
On appeal, W.T.W.’s appellate attorney has filed a brief stating that after reviewing
the record, she believes that the appeal is frivolous.1 Counsel has presented a professional evaluation
of the record and explained why she believes there are no arguable grounds for reversal. Counsel
has represented to the Court that she provided a copy of the brief to W.T.W.; advised him of his right
to examine the appellate record and file a pro se brief; provided him with the mailing address of the
Runnels County District Clerk; and notified him of his deadline for filing a pro se brief. See Taylor
v. Texas Dep’t of Protective & Regulatory Svcs., 160 S.W.3d 641, 646-47 n.4 Tex. App.—Austin
2005, pet. denied); see also Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-21 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).
W.T.W. has not filed a pro se brief or made contact with this Court. We have conducted our own
review of the record and we agree that the appeal is frivolous. We therefore affirm the trial court’s
order of termination and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw as attorney of record.
________________________________________________
David Puryear, Justice
Before Justices Puryear, Goodwin, and Bourland
Affirmed
Filed: August 21, 2015
1
This and other Texas courts have held that it is appropriate in a parental termination case
to file a brief asserting that the appeal is frivolous. See Taylor v. Texas Dep’t of Protective &
Regulatory Svcs., 160 S.W.3d 641, 646-47 n.4 Tex. App.—Austin 2005, pet. denied); In re D.E.S.,
135 S.W.3d 326, 329 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, no pet.); In re K.D., 127 S.W.3d 66,
67 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, no pet.).
2