Opinion
NO. 03-19-00558-CV
12-31-2019
L. R., Appellant v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee
FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY
NO. 17-0132-CPSC1 , THE HONORABLE BRANDY HALLFORD, JUDGE PRESIDING MEMORANDUM OPINION
Louise appeals a final judgment terminating her parental rights to a child. Following a jury trial, the trial court entered judgment finding by clear and convincing evidence that multiple statutory grounds support terminating her parental rights and that termination is in the best interest of the child. See Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), (O). Louise filed timely appeal.
See Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001. We refer to appellant by a pseudonym. See id. § 109.002(d).
Louise's court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw accompanied by a brief alleging that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967) (stating that court-appointed counsel who believes appeal is wholly frivolous should file motion to withdraw "accompanied by a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal"); 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). Counsel's brief meets the requirements of Anders by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating that there are no arguable grounds for reversal 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-rights termination case). Counsel has certified to this Court that he provided Louise with a copy of the Anders brief and motion to withdraw as counsel and a notice of her right to file a pro se brief. Appellee in this case, The Department of Family and Protective Services, filed a response indicating that it will not file a brief unless this Court requests one or the Department itself deems a brief necessary following Louise's filing of a brief. Louise has not filed a brief to date.
Upon receipt of an Anders brief, we must conduct a full examination of the proceedings to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988). After reviewing the record and the briefing, we find nothing that would arguably support a meritorious appeal. We thus agree with counsel that this appeal is frivolous and without merit. We nevertheless deny counsel's motion to withdraw. In P.M., the Supreme Court of Texas explained that a parent's right to counsel in termination suits extends to "all proceedings in [the Supreme Court of Texas], including the filing of a petition for review." See 520 S.W.3d at 27. Accordingly, counsel's obligation to Louise has not yet been discharged. See id. If Louise, after consulting with counsel, desires to file a petition for review, counsel should timely file with the high court "a petition for review that satisfies the standards for an Anders brief." See id. at 27-28.
For the reasons stated herein, we affirm the order terminating Louise's parental rights and deny counsel's motion to withdraw.
/s/_________
Edward Smith, Justice Before Chief Justice Rose, Justices Triana and Smith Affirmed Filed: December 31, 2019