AFFIRM; and Opinion Filed September 8, 2016.
S In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-16-00410-CV
IN THE INTEREST OF Y.D., ET AL, CHILDREN
On Appeal from the 305th Judicial District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 14-01249
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Lang-Miers, Evans, and Brown
Opinion by Justice Evans
Mother appeals from the trial court’s order terminating her parental rights to her children
Y.D. and A.W. Mother’s appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw, along with an
Anders brief asserting the appeal is without merit and there are no arguable grounds for reversal.
See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). We affirm the trial court’s judgment. We deny,
however, counsel’s motion to withdraw in light of the Texas Supreme Court’s recent opinion, In
re P.M., No. 15-0171, 2016 WL 1274748 at *3–4 (Tex. Apr. 1, 2016).
The procedures set forth in Anders are applicable to an appeal from a trial court’s order
terminating parental rights where, as here, appellant’s appointed counsel concludes there are no
non-frivolous issues to assert on appeal. See In re D.D., 279 S.W.3d 849, 849–50 (Tex. App.—
Dallas 2009, 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.). A
court of appeals is not required to address the merits of each claim raised in an Anders brief or a
pro se response. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); In re D.D.,
279 S.W.3d at 850 (citing Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 827). Rather, this Court’s duty is to determine
whether there are any arguable grounds for reversal and, if so, to remand the case to the trial
court so that new counsel may be appointed to address the issues. See In re D.D., 279 S.W.3d at
850.
Counsel for Mother filed an Anders brief in which he presents his professional evaluation
of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for reversal and concluding
Mother’s appeal of the termination of her parental rights is frivolous and without merit. See
Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; In re D.E.S., 135 S.W.3d at 327, 330; In re K.D., 127 S.W.3d at 67. In
counsel’s brief, he states he provided Mother a copy of his brief and informed Mother of her
right to examine the appellate record and to file a pro se response. Counsel also attached to his
motion to withdraw a copy of his correspondence to Mother, forwarded by regular and certified
mail, return receipt requested, advising Mother of her right to review the appellate record and to
file a pro se appellate brief, and noting that he had enclosed copies of his brief and his motion to
withdraw. See In re D.D., 279 S.W.3d at 850. This Court sent correspondence to Mother
forwarding a copy of her counsel’s brief, as well as advising her she had the right to review the
appellate record and file a pro se response. Mother did not file a pro se response.
We independently reviewed the entire record and counsel’s Anders brief. See
Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 827. We agree the appeal is frivolous and without merit. We find
nothing in the record that could arguably support the appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the trial
court’s final order terminating Mother’s parental rights to her children, Y.D. and A.W. We deny
counsel’s motion to withdraw because he does not show good cause other than his determination
–2–
that an appeal would be frivolous. See In re P.M., 2016 WL at *3–4 (in absence of grounds
other than the appeal is frivolous, withdrawal may be premature).
/David W. Evans/
DAVID EVANS
JUSTICE
160410F.P05
–3–
S
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
IN THE INTEREST OF Y.D., ET AL, On Appeal from the 305th Judicial District
CHILDREN Court, Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 14-01249.
No. 05-16-00410-CV Opinion delivered by Justice Evans, Justices
Lang-Miers and Brown participating.
In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is
AFFIRMED.
It is ORDERED that each party bear its own costs of this appeal.
Judgment entered this 8th day of September, 2016.
–4–
in the Interest of Y.D., a Child
Combined Opinion