From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re K.G.

Court of Appeals of Texas, Sixth District, Texarkana
Aug 18, 2021
No. 06-21-00051-CV (Tex. App. Aug. 18, 2021)

Opinion

06-21-00051-CV

08-18-2021

IN THE INTEREST OF K.G. AND K.G., CHILDREN


Submitted Date: August 16, 2021

On Appeal from the County Court at Law Lamar County, Texas Trial Court No. 88656

Before Morriss, C.J., Burgess and Stevens, JJ.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Josh R. Morriss, III Chief Justice Date

This is an appeal from a judgment terminating Mother's parental rights to her children, K.G. and K.G., on grounds that she knowingly placed or allowed the children to remain in conditions or surroundings that endangered their physical or emotional well-being, engaged in conduct or knowingly placed the children with persons who engaged in conduct that endangered their physical or emotional well-being, constructively abandoned the children, and failed to follow court orders setting forth the actions required for her to obtain the children's return. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), (N), (O) (Supp.). Mother's court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and a brief discussing the applicable law and evaluating the entire record in this case. Counsel concludes that no non-frivolous grounds can be advanced to support reversal of the trial court's judgment. Because we agree, we affirm the trial court's judgment.

Mother's attorney has filed a brief that states she has reviewed the record and has found no genuinely arguable issues that could be raised on appeal. The brief sets out the procedural history of the case and summarizes the evidence elicited during the trial court proceedings. Meeting the requirements of Anders v. California, counsel has provided a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 743-44 (1967); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding); see In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 (Tex. 2016) (per curiam) (recognizing that Anders procedures apply in parental-rights termination cases).

On June 21, 2021, counsel mailed to Mother copies of the brief, the appellate record, and the motion to withdraw. Mother was informed of her rights to review the record and file a pro se response. By letter dated June 23, this Court informed Mother that any pro se response was due on or before July 13. On July 26, this Court further informed Mother that the case would be set for submission on the briefs on August 16. We received neither a pro se response from Mother nor a motion requesting an extension of time in which to file such a response.

We have determined that this appeal is wholly frivolous. We have independently reviewed the entire appellate record and, like counsel, have determined that no arguable issue supports an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). In the Anders context, once we determine that the appeal is without merit, we must affirm the trial court's judgment. Id.

Even so, we deny counsel's motion to withdraw. See In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d at 27 (noting that, in parental-rights termination cases, court-appointed counsel's duty to her client generally extends "through the exhaustion of appeals" "including the filing of a petition for review" in the Texas Supreme Court). If Mother desires to pursue this matter in the Texas Supreme Court, counsel may fulfill her duty "by filing a petition for review that satisfies the standards for an Anders brief." See id. at 28.

We affirm the judgment of the trial court.


Summaries of

In re K.G.

Court of Appeals of Texas, Sixth District, Texarkana
Aug 18, 2021
No. 06-21-00051-CV (Tex. App. Aug. 18, 2021)
Case details for

In re K.G.

Case Details

Full title:IN THE INTEREST OF K.G. AND K.G., CHILDREN

Court:Court of Appeals of Texas, Sixth District, Texarkana

Date published: Aug 18, 2021

Citations

No. 06-21-00051-CV (Tex. App. Aug. 18, 2021)