TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-20-00346-CV
R. V., Appellant
v.
Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee
FROM THE 459TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY
NO. D-1-FM-19-003794, THE HONORABLE DARLENE BYRNE, JUDGE PRESIDING
MEMORANDUM OPINION
R.V. appeals from the trial court’s final decree terminating her parental rights to
her child. See Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001. Following a bench trial, the trial court found by clear
and convincing evidence that a statutory ground for terminating her parental rights existed and
that termination of those rights was in the child’s best interest. See id. § 161.001(b)(1)(O), (2).
On appeal, R.V.’s court-appointed attorney has filed a motion to withdraw
supported by an Anders 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 (Tex. 2016) (per
curiam) (approving use of Anders procedure in appeal from termination of parental rights). 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. 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). R.V.’s counsel has certified to this Court that she has provided R.V. with a
copy of the Anders brief and motion to withdraw and advised her of her right to examine the
appellate record and to file a pro se brief. To date, R.V. 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 brief unless this Court requests one.
We have conducted an independent review of the record, including the Anders brief
submitted on R.V.’s behalf. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988); Taylor, 160 S.W.3d
at 647. We have found nothing in the record that might arguably support an appeal, and we
agree with counsel that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. Accordingly, we affirm the
trial court’s decree terminating R.V.’s parental rights. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is denied.1
__________________________________________
Chari L. Kelly, Justice
Before Chief Justice Rose, Justices Baker and Kelly
Affirmed
Filed: December 3, 2020
1
The Texas Supreme Court has 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.” See In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 (Tex. 2016) (per
curiam). Accordingly, counsel’s obligation to R.V. has not yet been discharged. See id. If R.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.”
See id. at 27-28.
2