C. M. v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-22-00599-CV

C. M., Appellant

v.

Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee

FROM THE 459TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY
NO. D-1-FM-20-005059, THE HONORABLE MADELEINE CONNOR, JUDGE PRESIDING

MEMORANDUM OPINION

C.M. appeals from the trial court’s order terminating his parental rights to his

three children. See Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001. After a bench trial, the trial court rendered

judgment finding by clear and convincing evidence that two statutory grounds existed for

terminating C.M.’s parental rights and that termination was in the children’s best interest. See id.

§ 161.001(b)(1), (E), (O), (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 C.M. with a copy of the Anders brief and informed him of his right to

receive a copy of the entire appellate record and 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, appellant has not filed a pro se brief.

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 C.M. under part (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 that finding. 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 C.M.’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 C.M. 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).

2
 __________________________________________
Thomas J. Baker, Justice

Before Justices Baker, Triana, and Kelly

Affirmed

Filed: February 10, 2023

Accordingly, counsel’s obligations to C.M. have not yet been discharged. See id. If after
consulting with counsel appellant desires to file a petition for review, his counsel should timely
file with the Texas Supreme Court “a petition for review that satisfies the standards for an
Anders brief.” See id.

3