TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-19-00080-CV
K.A.V., Appellant
v.
Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 53RD JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NO. D-1-FM-18-000880, HONORABLE DARLENE BYRNE, JUDGE PRESIDING
MEMORANDUM OPINION
K.A.V. appeals from the trial court’s final judgment terminating her parental rights
to her child, P.W.1 See Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001. Following a bench trial, the district court
entered judgment finding clear and convincing evidence of a statutory basis for terminating
K.A.V.’s parental rights and that termination was in the best interest of the children. See id.
§ 161.001(b)(1)(N), (O), (b)(2).
K.A.V.’s court-appointed counsel has since 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) (stating that court-appointed counsel who concludes appeal is wholly frivolous should
file motion to withdraw “accompanied by a brief referring to anything in the record that might
arguably support the appeal”); In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 & n.10 (Tex. 2016) (per curiam)
1
We refer to appellant and her child by their initials. See Tex. Fam. Code § 109.002(d).
(approving use of Anders procedure in appeals from termination of parental rights). Counsel’s brief
meets the requirements of Anders by presenting a professional evaluation of the record
demonstrating that there are no arguable grounds for reversal 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 in parental-rights termination
case). K.A.V.’s counsel has certified to this Court that he provided K.A.V. with a copy of the
Anders brief and motion to withdraw as counsel and a notice of her right to file a pro se brief. The
Department filed a response to the Anders brief, indicating that it would not file a brief unless it
deems a brief necessary after review of any pro se brief or if this Court requests a response. No pro
se brief has been filed to date.
Upon receiving an Anders brief, we must conduct a full examination of all the
proceedings to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80
(1988). After reviewing the record and the Anders brief, we find nothing in the record that would
arguably support an appeal. We agree with K.A.V.’s counsel that the appeal is frivolous and without
merit. Accordingly, we affirm the order terminating K.A.V.’s parental rights and deny counsel’s
motion to withdraw.2
2
The Texas Supreme Court held in In re P.M. 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.” 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 (Tex. 2016) (per curiam). Accordingly,
counsel’s obligation to K.A.V. has not yet been discharged. See id. If K.A.V., 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. at 27–28.
2
_________________________________________
Edward Smith, Justice
Before Chief Justice Rose, Justices Kelly and Smith
Affirmed
Filed: June 21, 2019
3