Opinion
10-24-00201-CV
12-19-2024
IN THE INTEREST OF K.B., A CHILD
From the 361st District Court Brazos County, Texas Trial Court No. 23-001559-CV-361
Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Johnson, and Justice Smith
MEMORANDUM OPINION
STEVE SMITH Justice
The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services filed a petition seeking to terminate Mother and Father's parental rights to K.B. After a bench trial, the trial court found that terminating Mother and Father's parental rights to K.B. was in the child's best interest, terminated Mother's rights under Texas Family Code Sections 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), and (Q), and terminated Father's rights under Sections 161.001(b)(1)(D) and (E). See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. §§ 161.001(b)(1)(D), (b)(1)(E), (b)(1)(Q), (b)(2). Mother and Father appealed.
Counsel for Mother and counsel for Father have each filed Anders briefs asserting that they diligently reviewed the record and that they believe the respective appeals to be frivolous. See generally Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); See In re A.S., 653 S.W.3d 298 (Tex. App.-Waco 2022, no pet.). Mother's counsel additionally filed a motion to withdraw. We affirm.
The Anders Briefs
The briefs filed by counsel for Mother and counsel for Father meet the requirements of Anders by presenting professional evaluations demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to advance on appeal. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Each attorney has provided us with the appropriate facts of the case and its procedural history, and has discussed why, under controlling authority, there is no reversible error in the trial court's termination order as to their respective clients. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 n.9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Further, counsel for both Mother and Father have informed us that they have examined the record and found no arguable grounds to advance on appeal, served their client with a copy of the Anders brief, provided a form motion for pro se access to the appellate record lacking only the client's signature and the date, and informed the client of their right to file a response to the Anders brief. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 31920 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re A.S., 653 S.W.3d at 299-300. By letter, we informed Mother and Father of their right to review the appellate record and to file a response to the Anders brief filed by their appellate counsel. Mother filed a pro se response. Father did not file a pro se response.
Upon receiving 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). Arguments are frivolous when they "cannot conceivably persuade the court." McCoy v. Court of Appeals, 486 U.S. 429, 436 (1988). We have reviewed the record, counsels' briefs, and Mother's pro se response, and we have found nothing that would arguably support an appeal for Mother or for Father. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827-28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) ("Due to the nature of Anders briefs, by indicating in the opinion that it considered the issues raised in the briefs and reviewed the record for reversible error but found none, the court of appeals met the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1."). We affirm the judgment of the trial court terminating Mother's and Father's parental rights to K.B.
Motion to Withdraw of Mother's Counsel
Counsel for Mother has filed a motion to withdraw as was historically required in order to comply with the procedures set forth in Anders and its Texas progeny. However, the Texas Supreme Court has stated that "an Anders motion to withdraw brought in the court of appeals, in the absence of additional grounds for withdrawal, may be premature." See In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 (Tex. 2016). Counsel does not set forth any "good cause" outside of the filing of the Anders brief in his motion to withdraw. Consequently, we deny the motion to withdraw. Appointed counsel remains appointed in this case through any proceedings in the Texas Supreme Court unless otherwise relieved of these duties. See id. at 27-28.
Conclusion
Having found no meritorious issues presented in this appeal, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. We deny Mother's counsel's motion to withdraw.
Affirmed; motion denied