TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-18-00724-CV
J. J. T., Appellant
v.
Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TOM GREEN COUNTY, 340TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NO. C160093CPS, HONORABLE GARY L. BANKS, JUDGE PRESIDING
MEMORANDUM OPINION
J.J.T. appeals from the district court’s order terminating her parental rights to her
four-year-old son, B.E.M. See Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001. Following a bench trial, the district court
found by clear and convincing evidence that statutory grounds for termination existed and that
termination was in the child’s best interest. See id. § 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), (P), (2).
J.J.T.’s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and a 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 & n.10 (Tex. 2016) (per curiam) (approving use of Anders procedure
in appeals from termination of parental rights because it “strikes an important balance between
the defendant’s constitutional right to counsel on appeal and counsel’s obligation not to prosecute
frivolous appeals” (citations omitted)). 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) (applying Anders procedure to
appeal from termination of parental rights). J.J.T.’s counsel has certified to this Court that she has
provided J.J.T. with a copy of the Anders brief and informed her of her right to examine the appellate
record and to file a pro se brief. In response, J.J.T. has filed a pro se brief in which she asserts that
the termination trial was unfair for various reasons.
Upon receiving an Anders brief, we must conduct a full examination of all of the
proceedings to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80
(1988); Taylor, 160 S.W.3d at 647. We have reviewed the entire record, including the Anders brief
submitted on J.J.T.’s behalf, and we have also considered the arguments raised in J.J.T.’s pro se
brief. We have found nothing in the record that might arguably support an appeal, and we agree with
counsel that the appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order terminating
J.J.T.’s parental rights. We deny counsel’s motion to withdraw.1
__________________________________________
Gisela D. Triana, Justice
Before Justices Goodwin, Baker, and Triana
Affirmed
Filed: March 13, 2019
1
See In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27-28 (Tex. 2016) (per curiam). In P.M., the Texas
Supreme Court 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.” Id. Accordingly, counsel’s obligation to J.J.T. has not yet been discharged. See id. If J.J.T.,
after consulting with counsel, desires to file a petition for review, counsel should timely file with the
Texas Supreme Court “a petition for review that satisfies the standards for an Anders brief.” Id.
2