In the Interest of T.R., and T.R., Children v. the State of Texas ( 2023 )

In The
Court of Appeals
Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
No. 07-23-00074-CV
No. 07-23-00076-CV
IN THE INTEREST OF T.R. AND T.R., CHILDREN
IN THE INTEREST OF T.R., A CHILD
On Appeal from the 108th District Court
Potter County, Texas
Trial Court Nos. 96,552-E-FM & 87,890-E-FM, Honorable Carry Baker, Presiding
May 19, 2023
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before QUINN, C.J., and PARKER and DOSS, JJ.
This is an appeal from a final order terminating the parental relationship between
biological mother DH and three of her children, TR 2007, TR 2009, and TR 2012. 1 The
trial court based termination on mother’s voluntary execution of an irrevocable affidavit of
relinquishment. Her appointed counsel filed an Anders2 brief and moved to withdraw.
We affirm.
1 Because the children have the same initials, we differentiate between them by adding their
respective year of birth to those initials.
2 Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967).
Again, the trial court terminated mother’s rights based on her affidavits of voluntary
relinquishment of parental rights. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 161.001(b)(1)(K). It also
found that such termination was in the best interests of the children. See TEX. FAM. CODE
ANN. § 161.001(b)(2).
Pursuant to Anders, mother’s court-appointed appellate counsel filed a brief.
Therein, he explained that, after conducting a diligent review of the record and law, no
arguable issue existed warranting the appeal. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407
n.9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 n.3
(Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (en banc); In re A.W.T., 61 S.W.3d 87, 88 (Tex. App.—Amarillo
2001, no pet.) (procedures set forth in Anders v. California are applicable to appeals of
orders terminating parental rights). By letter, we informed mother of her right to file a pro
se response to her counsel’s Anders brief and motion to withdraw. See In re Schulman,
252 S.W.3d at 409.
Mother filed a response and asserted therein that she felt pressured to sign the
affidavits of relinquishment. A “direct or collateral attack on an order terminating parental
rights based on an unrevoked affidavit of relinquishment of parental rights or affidavit of
waiver of interest in a child is limited to issues relating to fraud, duress, or coercion in the
execution of the affidavit.” In re N.A.O., No. 07-21-00247-CV, 2022 Tex. App. LEXIS
1203, at *3-5 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Feb. 18, 2022, no pet.) (mem. op.); TEX. FAM. CODE
ANN. § 161.211(c). Appellate counsel addressed her comment about feeling pressured
and explained why no competent evidence of record supported reversal. Feeling
“pressure” alone or even if coupled with emotional stress does not equate fraud, duress,
or coercion. In re C.D., No. 12-21-00045-CV, 2021 Tex. App. LEXIS 7617, at *12 (Tex.
2
App.—Tyler Sept. 15, 2021, pet. denied) (mem. op.). And, our review of the record
uncovered no evidence suggesting fraud, duress, or coercion. Nor did it reveal some
other arguable ground supporting an appeal. See In re E.J.H., No. 07-22-00074-CV,
2022 Tex. App. LEXIS 4465, at *3 (Tex. App.—Amarillo June 29, 2022, no pet.) (mem.
op.) (discussing the obligation of the court to conduct its own search for arguable issues).
Finding no arguable issue for review, we affirm the trial court’s judgment
terminating mother’s parental rights to TR 2007, TR 2009, and TR 2012 but take no action
on the motion to withdraw. 3
Brian Quinn
Chief Justice
3 An Anders motion to withdraw filed in the court of appeals, in the absence of additional grounds
for withdrawal, may be premature. In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 (Tex. 2016) (per curiam). Courts have a
duty to see that withdrawal of counsel will not result in prejudice to the client. Id. In light of In re P.M., we
call counsel's attention to the continuing duty of representation through the exhaustion of proceedings,
which may include the filing of a petition for review in the Texas Supreme Court.
3