in the Interest of M. R. C., X. I. C., K. J. C. and K. J. C., Children ( 2021 )


Menu:
  •                                             COURT OF APPEALS
    EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
    EL PASO, TEXAS
    §          No. 08-21-00051-CV
    IN THE INTEREST OF:                                     §            Appeal from the
    M.R.C., X.I.C., K.J.C., and K.J.C.,                     §          109th District Court
    Minor Children.                                         §        of Winkler County, Texas
    §          (TC# DC19-17683)
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    Mother J.V.1 appeals a trial court judgment terminating her parental rights to children
    M.R.C, X.I.C., K.J.C., and K.J.C. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
    Mother is represented on appeal by court-appointed counsel who has filed a brief in
    accordance with the requirements of Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
    , 741-44 (1967). Court-
    appointed counsel has concluded that, after a thorough review of the record, Mother’s appeal is
    frivolous and without merit.
    In Anders, the Supreme Court recognized that counsel, though appointed to represent the
    appellant in an appeal from a criminal conviction, had no duty to pursue a frivolous matter on
    1
    We refer to the parties by aliases. See TEX.R.APP.P. 9.8(b)(2).
    1
    appeal. Anders, 
    386 U.S. at 744
    . Thus, counsel was permitted to withdraw after informing the
    court of his conclusion and the effort made in arriving at that conclusion. 
    Id.
     The procedures set
    forth in Anders apply to an appeal from a case involving the termination of parental rights when
    court-appointed counsel has determined that the appeal is frivolous. See In re P.M., 
    520 S.W.3d 24
    , 27 n.10 (Tex. 2016) (per curiam) (recognizing that Anders procedures apply in parental
    termination cases); In re J.B., 
    296 S.W.3d 618
    , 619 (Tex.App.--El Paso 2009, no pet.).
    Counsel’s brief meets the requirements of Anders by containing a professional evaluation
    of the record and demonstrating that there are no arguable grounds for reversal of the termination
    order. Upon receiving an Anders brief, we are required to conduct a full examination of all the
    proceedings to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 
    488 U.S. 75
    , 80
    (1988). We have thoroughly reviewed the entire record, including the Anders brief, and we have
    found nothing that would arguably support an appeal. We agree with counsel’s professional
    assessment that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. Because there is nothing in the record
    that might arguably support the appeal, the final order terminating Mother’s parental rights is
    affirmed.
    In the prayer section of the Anders brief, counsel for Mother asks this Court to relieve him
    of this appointment and allow him to withdraw. Based on Texas Supreme Court precedent, we
    cannot do so at this time. Upon determining that counsel has fully complied with the requirements
    of Anders and finding that the appeal is frivolous following an independent review of the record,
    intermediate appellate courts typically grant motions to withdraw in criminal cases. Granting the
    motion to withdraw relieves counsel of any obligation to continue with a frivolous appeal. In re
    D.C., 
    573 S.W.3d 860
    , 864 (Tex.App.--El Paso 2019, no pet.). The Texas Supreme Court has
    determined, however, that we must deny counsel’s motion to withdraw in this parental rights
    2
    termination case because a parent’s statutory right to counsel in suits seeking termination of
    parental rights extends to all proceedings in the Texas Supreme Court, including the filing of a
    petition for review, and counsel’s belief that the appeal is frivolous does not constitute “good
    cause” for withdrawal. In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d at 27; see TEX.FAM.CODE ANN. § 107.016(3) (in
    a suit by a governmental entity seeking the termination of parental rights, an attorney appointed to
    serve as an attorney ad litem for a parent or alleged father continues to serve in that capacity until
    the suit is dismissed, the date all appeals from the termination order are exhausted, or the date the
    attorney is relieved of his duties or replaced by another attorney after a finding of good cause is
    rendered by the court).
    Accordingly, we must deny counsel’s motion to withdraw. See In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d at
    27. In the event Mother advises appointed counsel that she wishes to challenge our decision by
    filing a petition for review, “counsel’s obligations can be satisfied by filing a petition for review
    that satisfies the standards for an Anders brief.” Id. at 27-28. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is
    denied.
    JEFF ALLEY, Justice
    June 10, 2021
    Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox, and Alley, JJ.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 08-21-00051-CV

Filed Date: 6/10/2021

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 6/17/2021