IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-22-00060-CV
IN THE INTEREST OF
Y.O., AND D.R.P.,
CHILDREN
From the 272nd District Court
Brazos County, Texas
Trial Court No. 20-002414-CV-272
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, the mother of Y.O. and D.R.P. (Mother), appeals the trial court’s order
terminating her parental rights. We will affirm.
After a bench trial, the parental rights of Mother to Y.O. and D.R.P. and the
parental rights of the father of D.R.P. (Father) were terminated. Father has not appealed
the trial court’s ruling.
Appellant's appointed appellate counsel has now filed an Anders brief, asserting
that he diligently reviewed the record and that, in his opinion, the appeal is frivolous.
See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967); In re E.L.Y., 69
S.W.3d 838, 841 (Tex. App.—Waco 2002, order) (applying Anders to termination appeal).
Counsel's brief meets the requirements of Anders; it presents a professional
evaluation demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to advance on appeal.
See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 n.9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (“In Texas, an Anders
brief need not specifically advance ‘arguable’ points of error if counsel finds none, but it
must provide record references to the facts and procedural history and set out pertinent
legal authorities.”); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).
Appellant's counsel has discussed why, under controlling authority, there is no
reversible error in the trial court's “Order of Termination and Final Order in Suit
Affecting Parent-Child Relationship.” Counsel has informed us that he has: (1)
examined the record and found no arguable grounds to advance on appeal and (2)
served a copy of the brief and instructions on requesting the appellate record on
Appellant. By letter, we informed Appellant of her right to review the record and to file
a pro se response. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400; Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d
313, 319–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 510 n.3; High v. State, 573
S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978); see also Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408–
09. Appellant has not filed a pro se response.
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, 109 S.Ct. 346, 349–50, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988). An appeal is “wholly
frivolous” or “without merit” when it “lacks any basis in law or fact.” McCoy v. Court of
Appeals, 486 U.S. 429, 438 n.10, 108 S.Ct. 1895, 1902 n.10, 100 L.Ed.2d 440 (1988). We
have reviewed the entire record and counsel's brief and have found nothing that would
In re Y.O. Page 2
arguably support an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2005) (“Due to the nature of Anders briefs, by indicating in the opinion that it
considered the issues raised in the briefs and reviewed the record for reversible error
but found none, the court of appeals met the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate
Procedure 47.1.”); Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 509.
Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's “Order of Termination and Final Order in
Suit Affecting Parent-Child Relationship.”
Counsel has filed a Motion to Withdraw and an Amended Motion to Withdraw,
which were historically required in order to comply with the requirements set forth in
Anders and its Texas progeny. However, the Texas Supreme Court has stated that the
lack of an arguable issue and the subsequent filing of a motion to withdraw and an
Anders brief in support may not be considered “good cause” for purposes of granting
the Anders motion to withdraw pursuant to the Texas Family Code. See In re P.M., 520
S.W.3d 24, 27–28 (Tex. 2016) (per curiam) (“[A]n Anders motion to withdraw brought in
the court of appeals, in the absence of additional grounds for withdrawal may be
premature.”); see In re G.P., 503 S.W.3d 531, 535 (Tex. App.—Waco 2016, pet. denied); see
also TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 107.016. Counsel does not set forth any “good cause”
outside the filing of the amended Anders briefs in his amended motion to withdraw.
We will deny the amended motion to withdraw in this proceeding. Consequently, if
Appellant desires to file a petition for review, her appellate counsel remains appointed
in this case through any proceedings in the supreme court unless otherwise relieved of
those duties. See In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d at 27.
In re Y.O. Page 3
MATT JOHNSON
Justice
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Johnson, and
Justice Smith
Affirmed
Motion denied
Opinion delivered and filed June 15, 2022
[CV06]
In re Y.O. Page 4