TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-18-00811-CV
M. M. G., Appellant
v.
Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee
FROM THE 200TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY
NO. D-1-AG-17-000013, HONORABLE JOHN K. DIETZ, JUDGE PRESIDING
MEMORANDUM OPINION
M.M.G. appeals from the trial court’s decree terminating his parental rights to
his children, E.M.A.-G. and E.A.-G.1 Following a bench trial, the trial court found by clear
and convincing evidence that a statutory ground for terminating his parental rights existed
and that termination of those rights was in the children’s best interest. See Tex. Fam. Code
§ 161.001(b)(1)(O), (2).
On appeal, M.M.G.’s court-appointed attorney 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); 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). The brief meets the requirements of Anders by presenting a
1
We refer to appellant, who is the father of the children, and to the children by their
initials only. See Tex. Fam. Code § 109.002(d); Tex. R. App. P. 9.8.
professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be
advanced on appeal. See 386 U.S. at 744; Taylor, 160 S.W.3d at 646-47. Appellant’s counsel
has certified to this Court that she provided M.M.G. with a copy of the Anders brief and motion
to withdraw as counsel and informed him of his right to examine the appellate record and to
file a pro se brief. To date, M.M.G. has not filed a pro se brief. The Department of Family and
Protective Services has filed a response to the Anders brief, stating that it will not file a response
unless this Court requests one.
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
M.M.G.’s behalf, and have found nothing that would arguably support an appeal. Accordingly,
we affirm the trial court’s decree terminating M.M.G.’s parental rights. We deny counsel’s
motion to withdraw.2
__________________________________________
Chari L. Kelly, Justice
Before Chief Justice Rose, Justices Kelly and Smith
Affirmed
Filed: May 10, 2019
2
See In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24 (Tex. 2016) (per curiam). In In re 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. at 27. Accordingly, counsel’s obligation to M.M.G. has not yet been discharged.
See id. If M.M.G., 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.” See id. at 27-28.
2