TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-13-00099-CV
A. K., Appellant
v.
Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY, 395TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NO. 12-0197-F395, HONORABLE MICHAEL JERGINS, JUDGE PRESIDING
MEMORANDUM OPINION
A.K. appeals from the trial court’s order terminating her parental rights to her minor
child. See Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001. In support of its petition to terminate A.K.’s parental rights,
the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (the Department) alleged that A.K. had
(1) constructively abandoned her child after the Department was made the child’s temporary managing
conservator and (2) failed to complete her court-ordered service plan. See id. § 161.001(1)(N)–(O).
The Department also alleged that termination of A.K.’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 statutory grounds for terminating A.K.’s parental rights existed and that
termination was in the child’s best interest.
On appeal, A.K.’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 A.K. with a copy of the Anders
brief along with a notice advising A.K. of her 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 A.K.’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 A.K.’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 11, 2013
2
A. K. v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services
Combined Opinion