Opinion
11-23-00161-CV
11-16-2023
IN THE INTEREST OF M.R.A., H.A.C.A., AND J.M.J.A.,CHILDREN
On Appeal from the 220th District Court Comanche County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. FM00722.
Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J., Trotter, J., and Williams, J.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
W. BRUCE WILLIAMS JUSTICE
This is an appeal from a final order in which the trial court terminated the parental rights of H.M., Appellant-Mother, to her children, M.R.A., H.A.C.A., and J.M.J.A. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001 (We s t Supp. 2023). Appellant filed a notice of appeal. W e affirm.
Appellant's court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and a supporting brief in which she professionally and conscientiously examines the record and applicable law and concludes that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406-08 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978).
Appellant's attorney sent by certified mail to Appellant's last known address a copy of the brief and motion, and a letter explaining her right to review the record and file a pro se response. All were returned as undeliverable. Repeated efforts were made by this Court to ensure Appellant's access to the Court and to apprise her of the pendency of this appeal and of the actions by counsel on appeal. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 318, 320-22 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). A new address for Appellant was obtained, and all returned notices were sent to Appellant's new address. This Court extended Appellant's deadline to file a pro se response, and no response has been filed.
We conclude Appellant's counsel has satisfied her duties under Anders, Schulman, and Kelly. Following the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman, we have independently reviewed the record in this case, and agree that Appellant's appeal is without merit.
Counsel for Appellant filed a motion to withdraw in addition to her brief. In light of the Texas Supreme Court's holding in I n r e P.M ., we deny the motion to withdraw because counsel has not shown "good cause" other than the determination that an appeal would be frivolous. See In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 (Tex. 2016) ("[A]n Anders motion to withdraw brought in the court of appeals, in the absence of additional grounds for withdrawal, may be premature."). In parental termination cases, court-appointed counsel's duty to his or her client generally extends "through the exhaustion of appeals," "including the filing of a petition for review" in the Texas Supreme Court. Id. at 27-28. "[A]ppointed counsel's obligations can be satisfied by filing a petition for review that satisfies the standards for an Anders brief." Id. at 27-28.
Accordingly, we deny counsel's motion to withdraw, and we affirm the trial court's order of termination.