G. C. and H. M. v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services ( 2022 )

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-22-00438-CV
G. C. and H. M., Appellants
v.
Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee
FROM THE 250TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY
NO. D-1-FM-20-004826, THE HONORABLE MARIA CANTU-HEXSEL, JUDGE PRESIDING
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellants G.C. (Mother) and H.M. (Father) challenge a final decree terminating
their respective parental rights to a single child, “Megan,” aged two years at the time of final
judgment on June 28, 2022. 1 The trial court terminated Mother’s rights under predicates
(D) (endangerment), (E) (placement in circumstances resulting in endangerment), (O) (failure to
comply with court-ordered service plan) (P) (use of controlled substance), and (R) (contributing
to birth of child with addiction to unprescribed controlled substance or alcohol). See Tex. Fam.
Code § 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), (O), (P), and (R). The court terminated Father’s rights to Megan
under predicates (D), (E), (O), and (P).
Counsel for Mother and counsel for Father have filed briefs concluding that any
appeal is frivolous and without merit. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967);
1 See Tex. Fam. Code § 109.002(d); Tex. R. App. P. 9.8.
In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 & n.10 (Tex. 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” (citations omitted)). These briefs meet 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 & Regul. Servs., 160 S.W.3d 641, 646–47 (Tex. App.—Austin 2005, pet. denied)
(applying Anders procedure in parental-rights termination case). The counselors have also
certified to this Court that Mother and Father were provided with a copy of the respective Anders
briefs and notice of the right to file a pro se brief. Neither Mother nor Father filed a brief.
Upon receipt of 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). After reviewing the record and the briefing, including the trial court’s findings under
subsections (D) and (E), see Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E); In re N.G., 577 S.W.3d 230,
236–37 (Tex. 2019) (per curiam), we find nothing that would arguably support a meritorious
appeal. We thus agree with counsel that any appeal is frivolous and without merit. Accordingly,
we affirm the trial court’s final decree of termination. 2
2 We deny Mother’s counsel’s request to withdraw. A parent’s right to counsel in
termination suits extends to “all proceedings in [the Supreme Court of Texas], including the filing
of a petition for review.” See In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 (Tex. 2016) (per curiam).
Accordingly, the counselors’ respective obligations to Mother and Father have not yet been
discharged. See id. If Mother or Father, after consulting with counsel, desire to file a petition for
review, counsel should timely file with the high court “a petition for review that satisfies the
standards for an Anders brief.” See id. at 27–28.
2
__________________________________________
Edward Smith, Justice
Before Justices Triana, Kelly, and Smith
Affirmed
Filed: December 20, 2022
3