S. v. v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services ( 2022 )

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-22-00482-CV
S. V., Appellant
v.
Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee
FROM THE 53RD DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY
NO. D-1-FM-20-007029, THE HONORABLE LORA J. LIVINGSTON, JUDGE PRESIDING
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Father appeals from a final decree terminating his parental rights to his
daughter, “Danielle,” aged 11 years at the time of the jury trial. The jury found by clear and
convincing evidence that termination is in Danielle’s best interest and that the Department of
Family and Protective Services had satisfied its burdens under predicates (D) (endangerment),
(E) (placement in circumstances resulting in endangerment), and (O) (failure to comply with
court-ordered service plan). See Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), (O), (b)(2). The trial
entered final judgment consistent with those findings; the court also terminated Mother’s rights,
but Mother did not appeal.
Counsel for Father has filed a brief arguing that the record reveals only frivolous
challenges to the final decree. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967) (stating that
court-appointed counsel who believes appeal is wholly frivolous should file motion to withdraw
“accompanied by a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the
appeal”); 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). We will affirm the decree
of termination.
Father’s court-appointed attorney has a filed brief concluding that any appeal is
frivolous and without merit. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; P.M., 520 S.W.3d at 27 & n.10. This
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 & Regul. Servs., 160 S.W.3d 641, 646–47
(Tex. App.—Austin 2005, pet. denied) (applying Anders procedure in parental-rights termination
case). Counsel has also certified to this Court that Father was provided with a copy of the
Anders brief and notice of the right to file a pro se brief, which he did.
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.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated herein, we affirm the final decree of termination.
2
__________________________________________
Edward Smith, Justice
Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Triana and Smith
Affirmed
Filed: December 30, 2022
3