TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-22-00601-CV
D.N., Appellant
v.
Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee
FROM THE 421ST DISTRICT COURT OF CALDWELL COUNTY
NO. 21-FL-132, THE HONORABLE THOMAS NATHANIEL STUCKEY, JUDGE PRESIDING
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Mother appeals the trial court's final order terminating her parental rights to her
children. 1 See Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001. After a bench trial, the trial court found by clear and
convincing evidence that statutory grounds for terminating her parental rights existed and that
termination of those rights was in the children’s best interest. Mother’s rights were terminated to
D.L and M.L., III, based on (D) (Endangering Conduct Provision), (E) (Endangering Conditions
Provision), and (O) (Ordered Services Provision) statutory grounds and her rights to F.L. were
terminated based on (K) (Voluntary Relinquishment Provision) grounds. See id.
§ 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), (K), (O) and (b)(2).
1 For the children’s privacy, we will refer to them by aliases D.L., F.L., and M.L., III,
and to their family members by their relationships to them. See Tex. R. App. P. 9.8. The
parental rights of the children’s father also were terminated in the order of termination, but he
has not appealed.
Appellant’s court-appointed attorney has filed a motion to withdraw 2 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
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 not filed a response to the
Anders brief.
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) of Family Code section 161.001(b)(1), and we have found no nonfrivolous issues that
2Counsel has also styled his motion as a “motion to substitute counsel,” but he has not
provided any alternate counsel to be substituted with, and the basis for substitution is just a
reformulation of his basis for withdrawal: that counsel believes his client has no nonfrivolous
grounds to seek further review. See In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27–28 (Tex. 2016) (per curiam)
(explaining that “counsel’s belief that the client has no grounds to seek further review,” without
more, cannot be the basis for withdrawal).
2
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 the 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
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 Theofanis
Affirmed
Filed: January 26, 2023
3