Opinion
No. 06-17-00089-CV
12-19-2017
IN THE INTEREST OF N.L. AND E.R., CHILDREN
On Appeal from the 76th District Court Camp County, Texas
Trial Court No. CPS-16-02774 Before Morriss, C.J., Moseley and Burgess, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Based on the verdict of a Camp County jury, the trial court appointed the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (the Department) as managing conservator of A.L.'s children, N.L. and E.R., and named A.L. possessory conservator of N.L., but did not name A.L. possessory conservator of E.R. A.L. is represented on appeal by court-appointed counsel who has filed a brief in accord with the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Her court-appointed counsel has concluded, after a thorough review of the record, that this appeal is frivolous and without merit. Because we agree, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. However, in consideration of appointed counsel's continuing obligation to represent A.L. for purposes of any further appellate review, we deny counsel's motion to withdraw.
The procedures set forth in Anders are applicable to an appeal from a trial court's order terminating parental rights when an appellant's appointed appellate counsel concludes that there are no nonfrivolous issues to assert on appeal. See In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 (Tex. 2016) (per curiam) (citing In re D.A.S., 973 S.W.2d 296, 297 n.10 (Tex. 1998)); In re P.M.H., No. 06-10-00008-CV, 2010 WL 1794390, at *1 (Tex. App.—Texarkana May 6, 2010, no pet.) (mem. op.). The Anders brief filed by A.L.'s counsel presents a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for reversal. Counsel has established that he provided A.L. with copies of his brief and the appellate record and notified her of her right to file a pro se response and of the deadline for doing so. By letter dated October 17, 2017, this Court informed A.L. that any pro se response was due on or before November 16, 2017. On November 27, 2017, this Court further informed A.L. that the case would be set for submission on the briefs on December 18, 2017. We received neither a pro se response from A.L. nor a motion requesting an extension of time in which to file such a response.
Court-appointed counsel's brief meets the requirements of Anders by providing a professional evaluation of the record and stating why there are no arguable grounds for reversal on appeal. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. Having thoroughly reviewed the record and counsel's brief, we agree with counsel's assessment that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the record that could arguably support the appeal. See id. (emphasizing that reviewing court, not counsel, determines, after full examination of proceedings, whether appeal is wholly frivolous). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's final order appointing the Department as managing conservator of A.L.'s children, N.L. and E.R., naming A.L. as possessory conservator of N.L., and not naming A.L. as possessory conservator of E.R.
We deny counsel's motion to withdraw, however. Once counsel is appointed by the trial court, he may be permitted to withdraw only for good cause. P.M., 520 S.W.3d at 27. In cases where the Department requests appointment as conservator of a child, "counsel's belief that the client has no grounds to seek further review from the court of appeals' decision" is not "good cause" sufficient to justify counsel's withdrawal. Id. Instead, an attorney's duty to his client extends through the exhaustion or waiver of all appeals in relation to the order. Id. If, after consultation, A.L. wishes to pursue an appeal to the Supreme Court of Texas, counsel may satisfy his obligation to represent her on appeal "by filing a petition for review that satisfies the standards for an Anders brief." Id.
We affirm the trial court's judgment.
Bailey C. Moseley
Justice Date Submitted: December 18, 2017
Date Decided: December 19, 2017