in the Interest of J. M., a Child ( 2022 )

COURT OF APPEALS
EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
EL PASO, TEXAS
§ No. 08-22-00173-CV
IN THE INTEREST OF: J.M., A Child § Appeal from the
Appellant. § 65th Judicial District Court
§ of El Paso County, Texas
§ (TC# 2021DCM4599)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Mother, Y.P. 1 , appeals the trial court judgment of September 2, 2022, terminating her
parental rights to her child J.M. 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. Appellant’s counsel has certified to this Court that she has provided
Mother with a copy of the Anders brief and motion to withdraw and advised her of her rights to
examine the appellate record and to file a pro se brief. On November 16, 2022, Mother requested
1
We refer to the parties by aliases. See Tex.R.App.P. 9.8(b)(2).
a copy of the clerk’s and reporter’s record to file a pro se brief. The records were sent on November
17, 2022, and her brief was due December 7, 2022. To date, Mother has not filed a pro se brief.
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
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
cour-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 found
nothing that would arguably support an appeal. We have specifically reviewed the trial court’s
findings as to Mother under subsections (D) and (E), and found no nonfrivolous issues that could
be raised on appeal with respect to those findings. See In re N.G., 577 S.W.3d 230, 237 (Tex. 2019)
(per curiam). We agree with counsel’s professional assessment that the appeal is frivolous and
without merit. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s order terminating Mother’s parental rights.
The Texas Supreme Court has determined 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. In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d at 27; see Tex.Fam.Code Ann.
2
§ 107.016(2). Accordingly, counsel’s obligations to Mother have not yet been discharged. 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. Mother’s
counsel’s motion to withdraw is, therefore, denied.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in all respects.
YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Chief Justice
December 14, 2022
Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox, and Alley, JJ.
3