Opinion
NO. 03-16-00453-CV
12-28-2016
M. P., Appellant v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF CALDWELL COUNTY, 22ND JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NO. 14-FL-484, HONORABLE TODD A. BLOMERTH, JUDGE PRESIDINGMEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant M.P. appeals from the trial court's final order terminating her parental rights to her daughter, L.S.See Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001. Following a bench trial, the trial court entered judgment in accordance with its findings by clear and convincing evidence that statutory grounds for terminating M.P.'s parental rights existed and that termination was in the child's best interest. See id. § 160.001(b)(1)(D), (E), (N), (O), (P), (2).
To preserve the parties' privacy and for convenience, we refer to the child and her mother by their initials or their roles. See Tex. Fam. Code § 109.002(d); Tex. R. App. P. 9.8.
M.P.'s court-appointed counsel has since filed a motion to withdraw and a brief concluding that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967) (court-appointed counsel who finds appeal to be wholly frivolous should so advise court and request permission to withdraw and file brief referring to anything in record that might arguably support appeal); In re P.M., ___ S.W.3d ___, No. 15-0171, 2016 WL 1274748, at *3 & n.10 (Tex. Apr. 1, 2016) (per curiam) (approving use of Anders procedure in appeals from termination of parental rights because it "'strikes an important balance between the . . . defendant's constitutional right to counsel on appeal and counsel's obligation not to prosecute frivolous appeals'" (quoting In re D.A.S., 973 S.W.2d 296, 297 (Tex. 1998))). The 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-termination case). M.P.'s counsel has certified to this Court that he provided M.P. 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. The Department filed a response to the Anders brief, indicating that it would not file a brief unless it deemed a brief necessary after review of any pro se brief or unless requested to do so by this Court. No pro se brief has been filed.
Upon receiving an Anders brief, we must conduct a full examination of all 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 Anders brief submitted on M.P.'s behalf, we find nothing in the record that would arguably support an appeal. We agree with M.P.'s counsel that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. Accordingly, we affirm the order terminating M.P.'s parental rights. We deny counsel's motion to withdraw.
See In re P.M., ___ S.W.3d ___, No. 15-0171, 2016 WL 1274748 (Tex. Apr. 1, 2016) (per curiam). In In re P.M., the Texas Supreme Court held that the right to counsel in suits seeking the termination of parental rights extends to "all proceedings in [the Texas Supreme Court], including the filing of a petition for review." Id. at *3. Accordingly, counsel's obligation to M.P. has not yet been discharged. See id. If M.P., after consulting with counsel, desires to file a petition for review, counsel should timely file with the Texas Supreme Court "a petition for review that satisfies the standards for an Anders brief." Id. --------
/s/_________
Cindy Olson Bourland, Justice Before Chief Justice Rose, Justices Goodwin and Bourland Affirmed Filed: December 28, 2016