Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
J.K., the mother of A.W., appealed a Tarrant County district court order terminating her parent–child relationship and appointing the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services as the child’s permanent managing conservator. The trial court found four statutory grounds for termination under Texas Family Code Section 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), (O), and (Q), and found that termination was in the child’s best interest.
The evidence included the mother’s drug use during pregnancy, the child’s positive test for amphetamines at birth, her noncompliance with drug testing, criminal history and incarceration, sex-offender-registration issues, mental-health conditions, unstable housing, and missed visits. Her appointed appellate counsel filed an Anders brief and moved to withdraw, stating that a diligent review revealed no nonfrivolous appellate issues. The mother did not file a pro se response, and the Department declined to submit a responsive brief.
The Court’s Holding
The Second Court of Appeals independently reviewed the appellate record and counsel’s Anders brief. It found no arguable grounds for appeal, agreed that the appeal lacked merit, and affirmed the order terminating the mother’s parental rights.
The court denied appointed counsel’s motion to withdraw because the record showed no good cause independent of counsel’s conclusion that the appeal was frivolous. Counsel therefore remained appointed through any proceedings in the Texas Supreme Court unless relieved of those duties.
Key Takeaways
- An appellate court receiving an Anders brief in a parental-rights termination case must independently review the record for arguable appellate grounds.
- The court found no nonfrivolous issue and affirmed the termination order.
- A finding that an appeal is frivolous does not, by itself, establish good cause for appointed counsel to withdraw before possible Texas Supreme Court proceedings conclude.
Why It Matters
The opinion reinforces both components of the Anders procedure in Texas termination cases: independent judicial review protects the parent’s appellate rights, while counsel must provide a professional evaluation explaining why no arguable issue exists.
It also underscores that appointed counsel’s responsibilities may continue beyond the intermediate appellate court’s decision, even after that court agrees that the appeal is frivolous.