TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-22-00485-CV
J. T., Appellant
v.
Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee
FROM THE 453RD DISTRICT COURT OF HAYS COUNTY
NO. 22-0193, THE HONORABLE J. DAVID PHILLIPS, JUDGE PRESIDING
MEMORANDUM OPINION
J.T. (Mother) appeals the trial court’s final order terminating her parental rights to
her children. 1 See Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001. After a jury trial, the jury found by clear and
convincing evidence that statutory grounds 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)(D), (E).
Appellant’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 & n.10 (Tex. 2016) (per
curiam) (approving use of Anders procedure in appeals from terminations of parental rights).
The brief meets the requirements of Anders by presenting a professional evaluation of the record
1 For the children’s privacy, we will refer to them by aliases and to their family members
by their relationships to them or by aliases. See Tex. R. App. P. 9.8. The parental rights of the
children’s fathers also were terminated, but they have not appealed.
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 & Regul. Servs., 160 S.W.3d 641, 646–47 (Tex. App.—
Austin 2005, pet. denied). Appellant’s counsel has certified to this Court that he has provided
Mother with a copy of the Anders brief and motion to withdraw and advised her of her rights to
examine the appellate record and to file a pro se brief. To date, Mother has not filed a pro se
brief. The Department of Family and Protective Services has filed a response to the Anders
brief, concurring that the evidence is legally and factually sufficient to terminate Mother’s
parental rights.
Upon receiving an Anders brief, we must conduct a full examination of the record
to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988);
Taylor, 160 S.W.3d at 647. We have conducted an independent review of the entire record,
including the Anders brief submitted on Mother’s behalf. We have found nothing in the record
that might arguably support an appeal, and we agree the appeal is frivolous and without merit.
We have specifically reviewed the trial court's findings as to Mother under subsections (D)
and (E), and we have found no nonfrivolous 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) (per curiam). Accordingly, we
affirm the trial court's order terminating Mother’s parental rights.
However, the Supreme Court of Texas has held that the right to counsel in suits
seeking the termination of parental rights extends to “all proceedings in th[e Supreme Court of
Texas], including the filing of a petition for review.” In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 (Tex. 2016)
(per curiam). Accordingly, counsel's obligation to Mother has not yet been discharged. See id.
If after consulting with counsel Mother desires to file a petition for review, her counsel should
2
timely file with the Supreme Court “a petition for review that satisfies the standards for an
Anders brief.” See id. at 27–28. Counsel's motion to withdraw therefore is denied.
__________________________________________
Darlene Byrne, Chief Justice
Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Triana and Smith
Affirmed
Filed: November 29, 2022
3