TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-19-00563-CV
A. L., Appellant
v.
Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee
FROM THE 419TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY
NO. D-1-FM-17-007487
THE HONORABLE CATHERINE MAUZY, JUDGE PRESIDING
MEMORANDUM OPINION
A.L. appeals from the trial court’s final decree terminating her parental rights to
her child.1 See Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001. Following a bench trial, the trial court found by clear
and convincing evidence that statutory grounds for terminating her parental rights existed and
that termination was in the child’s best interest. See id. § 161.001(b)(1)(E), (O), (2).
On appeal, appellant’s court-appointed attorney has filed 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 professional evaluation of
1 We refer to appellant by her initials only. See Tex. Fam. Code § 109.002(d); Tex. R.
App. P. 9.8.
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 appellant with a copy of the Anders brief and informed her of her rights to
examine the appellate record and to file a pro se brief. Appellant has filed a pro se brief. The
Department of Family and Protective Services has filed a waiver of right to file responses to the
Anders briefs and the pro se brief.
Upon receiving an Anders brief, we must conduct a full examination 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
appellant’s behalf and appellant’s pro se brief, and 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 final decree terminating appellant’s parental rights.2
__________________________________________
Melissa Goodwin, Justice
Before Justices Goodwin, Baker, and Kelly
Affirmed
Filed: December 5, 2019
2 As she acknowledges in the brief, counsel’s obligation to her client has not yet been
discharged. See In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 (Tex. 2016) (per curiam). If appellant, 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