Court of Appeals of Texas, Twelfth District, Tyler
from the County Court at Law No. 2 of Angelina County, Texas
(Tr. Ct. No. CV-00524-15-08)
consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.
T. Worthen Chief Justice
and T.T. appeal the termination of their parental rights.
M.B.'s counsel and T.T.'s counsel each filed a brief
in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S.
738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and Gainous v.
State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). We affirm.
and T.T. are the parents of T.T.1. On August 10, 2015, the
Department of Family and Protective Services (the Department)
filed an original petition for protection of the child, for
conservatorship, and for termination of M.B.'s and
T.T.'s parental rights. The Department was appointed
temporary managing conservator of the child.
conclusion of the trial on the merits, the trial court found,
by clear and convincing evidence, that M.B. had engaged in
one or more of the acts or omissions necessary to support
termination of her parental rights under subsections (E),
(O), and (P) of Texas Family Code Section 161.001(b)(1). The
trial court also found that termination of the parent-child
relationship between M.B. and T.T.1 is in the child's
best interest. Based on these findings, the trial court
ordered that the parent-child relationship between M.B. and
T.T.1 be terminated.
the trial court found that T.T. was, and adjudicated him to
be, the father of T.T.1. The trial court also found, by clear
and convincing evidence, that T.T. had engaged in one or more
of the acts or omissions necessary to support termination of
his parental rights under subsections (E) and (Q) of Texas
Family Code Section 161.001(b)(1). The trial court found that
termination of the parent-child relationship between T.T. and
T.T.1 is in the child's best interest. Based on these
findings, the trial court ordered that the parent-child
relationship between T.T. and T.T.1 be terminated. This
Pursuant to Anders v. California
and T.T.'s counsels filed briefs in compliance with
Anders. Each counsel stated that he diligently
reviewed the appellate record and is of the opinion that the
record reflects no reversible error and that there is no
error upon which an appeal for M.B. and T.T. can be
predicated. This court has previously held that
Anders procedures apply in parental rights
termination cases when the Department has moved for
termination. See In re K.S.M., 61 S.W.3d 632, 634
(Tex. App.-Tyler 2001, no pet.). In compliance with
Anders, both counsels' briefs present a
professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there
are no reversible grounds on appeal for M.B. and T.T., and
referencing any grounds that might arguably support the
appeals. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S.Ct. at
1400; Mays v. State, 904 S.W.2d 920, 922-23 (Tex.
App.-Fort Worth 1995, no pet.).
duties as a reviewing court, we must conduct an independent
evaluation of the record to determine whether counsels are
correct in determining that the appeals are frivolous.
See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex.
Crim. App. 1991); Mays, 904 S.W.2d at 923. We have
carefully reviewed the appellate record and counsels'
briefs. We find nothing in the record that might arguably
support the appeals. See Taylor v. Tex. Dep't of
Protective & Regulatory Servs., 160 S.W.3d 641,
646-47 (Tex. App.-Austin 2005, pet. denied).
agree with M.B.'s and T.T.'s counsels that the
appeals are wholly frivolous. However, we deny
T.T.'s counsel's request to withdraw. See In re
P.M., No. 15-0171, 2016 WL 1274748, at *3 (Tex. Apr. 1,
2016). In In re P.M., the Texas Supreme
Court held 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." Id. at *3.
Therefore, counsels' obligations to M.B. and T.T. have
not yet been discharged. See id. In accordance with
In re P.M., M.B.'s counsel has not moved to
withdraw. If M.B. and T.T., after consulting with their
counsels, desire to file a petition for review, counsels
should timely file with the Texas Supreme Court "a
petition for review that satisfies the standards for an
Anders brief." See id.; see also
A.C. v. Tex. ...