TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-20-00021-CV
E. A. A., Appellant
v.
Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee
FROM THE 53RD DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY
NO. D-1-FM-18-003766, THE HONORABLE TIM SULAK, JUDGE PRESIDING
MEMORANDUM OPINION
E.A.A. appeals from the trial court’s order terminating her parental rights to her
child. See Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001. After a jury trial, the trial court rendered judgment on the
jury’s verdict finding by clear and convincing evidence that several statutory grounds existed for
terminating E.A.A.’s parental rights and that termination was in the child’s best interest. See id.
§ 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), (L), (Q), (b)(2).
Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed 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 in parental-termination case). Appellant’s counsel has certified to this Court that she
has provided her client with a copy of the Anders brief, the reporter’s record, and the clerk’s
record and informed her client of her right to file a pro se brief. The Department of Family and
Protective Services has filed a response to the Anders brief, waiving its right to file an appellee’s
brief unless requested by this Court or as needed to respond to any pro se brief filed by appellant.
To date, no pro se brief has been filed.
We have conducted a full examination of all of the proceedings to determine
whether the appeal is wholly frivolous, as we must when presented with an Anders brief. See
Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988). We have specifically reviewed the trial court’s findings
as to E.A.A. under parts (D) and (E) of Family Code § 161.001(b)(1), and we have found no
non-frivolous issues that could be raised on appeal with respect to those findings. See In re N.G.,
577 S.W.3d 230, 237 (Tex. 2019) (holding that “due process and due course of law requirements
mandate that an appellate court detail its analysis for an appeal of termination of parental rights
under section 161.001(b)(1)(D) or (E) of the Family Code”). After reviewing the record and the
Anders brief, we find nothing in the record that would arguably support E.A.A.’s appeal. We
agree with appellant’s counsel that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. Accordingly, we
affirm the trial court’s order terminating the parental rights of E.A.A. We deny counsel’s motion
to withdraw.1
1
The Texas Supreme Court has held that the right to counsel in suits seeking termination
of parental rights extends to “all proceedings [in the Texas Supreme Court], including the
filing of a petition for review.” In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27–28 (Tex. 2016) (per curiam).
Accordingly, counsel’s obligations to E.A.A. have not yet been discharged. See id. If after
2
__________________________________________
Thomas J. Baker, Justice
Before Chief Justice Rose, Justices Baker and Triana
Affirmed
Filed: April 16, 2020
consulting with counsel appellant desires to file a petition for review, her counsel should timely
file with the Texas Supreme Court “a petition for review that satisfies the standards for an
Anders brief.” See id.
3