G. C., Sr. v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services

Summarize Case

Related Cases

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-13-00144-CV G. C., Sr., Appellant v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TOM GREEN COUNTY, 340TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. C-09-0016-CPS, HONORABLE JAY K., WEATHERBY, JUDGE PRESIDING MEMORANDUM OPINION G.C., Sr. (G.C.) appeals from the trial court’s order terminating his parental rights to his minor child. See Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001. In support of its petition to terminate G.C.’s parental rights, the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (the Department) alleged four separate statutory grounds for termination. See id. § 161.001(1)(M)–(O), (Q). The Department also alleged that termination of G.C.’s parental rights was in the child’s best interest. See id. § 161.001(2). Following a termination hearing, the trial court found by clear and convincing evidence that all of the statutory grounds for terminating G.C.’s parental rights existed and that termination was in the child’s best interest. On appeal, G.C.’s court-appointed attorney has filed an Anders brief informing this Court that she has made a diligent review of the appellate record and can find no arguable grounds to be advanced on appeal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). The brief meets the requirements of Anders by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See 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 appeal from termination of parental rights). Counsel provided G.C. with a copy of the Anders brief along with a notice advising G.C. of his right to examine the appellate record and to file a pro se brief. No pro se brief has been filed. Upon receiving an Anders brief, we must conduct a full examination of all of the proceedings to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988). We have reviewed the entire record, including the Anders brief submitted on G.C.’s behalf, and we have found nothing that would arguably support an appeal. We agree that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s order terminating G.C.’s parental rights and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw as attorney of record. __________________________________________ Scott K. Field, Justice Before Chief Justice Jones, Justices Goodwin and Field Affirmed Filed: July 24, 2013 2