Opinion
04-22-00129-CV
08-17-2022
IN THE INTEREST OF K.S., a Child
From the 81st Judicial District Court, Karnes County, Texas Trial Court No. 20-08-00147-CVK Honorable Joel B. Johnson, Judge Presiding.
Sitting: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Beth Watkins, Justice.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice.
AFFIRMED; MOTIONS TO WITHDRAW DENIED
Appellants Mom and Dad appeal the trial court's order terminating their respective parental rights to their child K.S. For the reasons given below, we affirm the trial court's order.
We use aliases to protect the child's identity. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 109.002(d); TEX. R. APP. P. 9.8.
In the two-day trial, the trial court heard testimony from Department witnesses and Dad, but Mom did not appear in person; the testimony included the following.
Before K.S. was born, K.S.'s two preschool siblings tested positive for methamphetamine, and those two siblings were the children of a separate suit by the Department. In that case, Mom and Dad had service plans for K.S.'s two siblings, and the Department asked Mom about her health including whether she was pregnant. Mom repeatedly told the Department she was not pregnant, and Dad concurred. But Mom had given birth in 2018 and 2019, and she knew her last menstrual cycle was in October 2019. Nevertheless, Mom told Department workers that she did not know she was pregnant until she gave birth to K.S. in August 2020.
Cause No. 19-09-00242-CVK, styled In the Interest of B.A.S. and B.J.S., Children, from the 218th Judicial District Court, Karnes County, Texas, the Honorable Russell Wilson presiding.
When K.S. was born, K.S.'s urine and meconium tested positive for methamphetamine, and K.S. had severe withdrawal symptoms. The Department initiated the underlying suit for K.S. During this case, Mom completed seven drug tests but missed thirty-five.
Dad testified that he did not know Mom was pregnant with K.S. until she delivered, and he did not believe Mom used drugs while she was pregnant. In contrast, the Department's case worker testified that Dad told her he knew Mom was using drugs during her pregnancy with K.S. Dad acknowledged that K.S.'s two preschool-age siblings had tested positive for methamphetamine, but he stated "those tests are inconclusive."
K.S. is strongly bonded to her two older biological siblings, who also live in the home with her foster parents. She is strongly bonded to her foster parents-the only parents she has lived with since four days after she was born. K.S. and her siblings are thriving, and their foster parents want to adopt all three children.
The trial court found Mom's course of conduct met grounds (D), (E), (O), and (P); Dad's course of conduct met ground (E); and terminating Mom's and Dad's respective parental rights was in K.S.'s best interest. It terminated the parents' rights to K.S.; both parents appeal.
Mom's Anders Brief
Mom's court-appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw and a brief containing a professional evaluation of the record. The brief concludes there are no arguable grounds to reverse the termination order. The brief satisfies the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). See In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 n.10 (Tex. 2016) (per curiam) (applying Anders procedures to parental rights termination cases). Counsel also provided Mom with a copy of the Anders brief, her motion to withdraw, and a form to request a free copy of the appellate record. She advised Mom of her right to review the record and file her own brief.
We ordered Mom to file her pro se brief, if any, not later than July 18, 2022. Mom did not request a copy of the record or file a pro se brief.
Dad's Anders Brief
Dad's court-appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw and a brief containing a professional evaluation of the record. The brief concludes there are no arguable grounds to reverse the termination order. The brief satisfies the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). See In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d at 27 n.10. Counsel also represents that he provided Dad with a copy of the Anders brief and counsel's motion to withdraw. Counsel advised Dad of his right to request a free copy of the appellate record and file his own brief.
We ordered Dad to file his pro se brief, if any, not later than July 18, 2022. Dad did not request a copy of the record or file a pro se brief.
Disposition
Having carefully reviewed the entire record and counsels' briefs, we conclude the evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support the trial court's findings with respect to each parent by clear and convincing evidence. We further conclude that there are no plausible grounds to reverse the termination order.
We affirm the trial court's order.
Motions to Withdraw
In their motions to withdraw, court-appointed appellate counsel do not assert any ground for withdrawal other than their conclusions that their respective client's appeal is frivolous. Counsels' duties to Mom and Dad are not yet complete; the motions to withdraw are denied. See id. at 27; see also TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 107.016(2); In re A.M., 495 S.W.3d 573, 583 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2016, pet. denied) ("If the mother wishes to pursue an appeal to the Supreme Court of Texas, 'appointed counsel's obligations can be satisfied by filing a petition for review that satisfies the standards for an Anders brief.'" (quoting In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d at 27- 28)).