in the Interest of S.K.G., Child ( 2021 )

NUMBER 13-21-00145-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG
IN THE INTEREST OF S.K.G., CHILD
On appeal from the 24th District Court
of Victoria County, Texas.
ORDER OF ABATEMENT
Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Benavides and Silva
Order Per Curiam
This is an appeal of a judgment terminating parental rights to S.K.G., a child. Court-
appointed appellate counsel for appellant K.D.G., S.K.G.’s biological father, filed a brief
and a motion to withdraw stating that he has “thoroughly reviewed the record on appeal
and the factual and legal basis for the trial court[‘]s ruling. As set forth in the Brief, there
are no non-frivolous issues to be raised and the trial court’s ruling was not an abuse of
judicial discretion as the State met its burden to bring sufficient evidence to support the
termination findings under § 161.001(b)(1), subsections D, E, N, O, and/or best interest
grounds.” See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Porter v. Tex. Dep’t of Protective
& Regulatory Servs., 105 S.W.3d 52, 56 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg 2003, no
pet.) (permitting appointed counsel in a parental termination appeal to file a brief in
compliance with Anders).
K.D.G.’s appellate counsel has informed this Court that he was unable to provide
K.D.G. with a copy of his brief and motion to withdraw due to K.D.G. not having a mailing
address in the United States. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d
313, 319–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). We did not receive a pro se response from K.D.G.
Upon receiving an Anders brief, we must conduct a full examination of all the
proceedings to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. See Penson v. Ohio,
488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988); In re S.P., 509 S.W.3d 552, 559 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2016, no
pet.). Having reviewed the record and counsel’s Anders brief, we find that the issue of
whether the evidence adduced at trial is legally or factually sufficient to support the
termination of K.D.G.’s rights under § 161.001(b)(1)(D) or (b)(1)(E) is an arguable, non-
frivolous issue precluding our immediate affirmance of the judgment under Anders. See
Anders, 386 U.S. at 744 (“[I]f [an appellate court] finds any of the legal points arguable on
the merits (and therefore not frivolous) it must, prior to decision, afford the indigent the
assistance of counsel to argue the appeal”); In re N.G., 577 S.W.3d 230, 239 (Tex. 2019);
In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27–28 (Tex. 2016); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511
(Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (“[I]f the Court of Appeals does find that there are arguable
grounds, the appellate court must then guarantee the appellant’s right to counsel by
ensuring that another attorney is appointed to represent appellant on appeal.”); see also
2
In re N.M., No. 07-16-00439-CV, 2017 WL 1151934 , at *1 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Mar. 23,
2017, no pet.) (mem. op.); In re A.W., No. 01-15-01030-CV, 2016 WL 3022824, at *8
(Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] May 26, 2016, no pet.) (mem. op.).
Accordingly, we GRANT counsel’s motion to withdraw, ABATE the appeal, and
REMAND the cause to the trial court for appointment of new appellate counsel for K.D.G.
See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d at 27–28. The record of
appointment, including newly-appointed counsel’s name, email and postal addresses,
telephone number, and state bar number shall be filed with the Clerk of this Court within
twenty (20) days of this order. Newly-appointed counsel shall, no later than twenty (20)
days from his or her appointment, file with the Clerk of this Court an appellate brief on
behalf of K.D.G. addressing the aforementioned issue and any other arguably meritorious
issue discovered.1 Appellee, the Department of Family and Protective Services, may then
file a responsive brief within twenty (20) days2 of the filing of K.D.G.’s brief, as provided
by rule. See TEX. R. APP. P. 28.4, 38.6(b).
PER CURIAM
Delivered and filed on the
1st day of July, 2021.
1
We urge newly-appointed counsel to use whatever means necessary to ensure K.D.G. receives
notice of the brief filed on his behalf.
2
This expedited procedure is ordered in light of our obligation to ensure “as far as reasonably
possible” that parental termination appeals are brought to final disposition within 180 days of the date the
notice of appeal is filed. See TEX. R. JUD. ADMIN. 6.2(a).
3