Court of Appeals of Texas, Twelfth District, Tyler
FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2 ANGELINA COUNTY, TEXAS
consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.
and C.S. appeal the termination of their parental rights.
Both parents' counsel 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.
the mother, and C.S. is the father of C.L.S. On February 26,
2016, the Department of Family and Protective Services (the
Department) filed an original petition for protection of
C.L.S., for conservatorship, and for termination of
A.W.'s and C.S.'s parental rights. The Department was
appointed temporary managing conservator of the child, and
both parents were appointed temporary possessory conservators
with limited rights and duties.
conclusion of the trial on the merits, the trial court found,
by clear and convincing evidence, that A.W. had engaged in
one or more of the acts or omissions necessary to support
termination of her parental rights under subsections (M),
(N), (O), (P), and (R) of Texas Family Code Section
161.001(b)(1). The trial court also found that termination of
the parent-child relationship between A.W. and C.L.S. is in
the child's best interest. Based on these findings, the
trial court ordered that the parent-child relationship
between A.W. and C.L.S. be terminated.
the trial court found, by clear and convincing evidence, that
C.S. had engaged in one or more of the acts or omissions
necessary to support termination of his parental rights under
subsections (D), (E), (M), and (N) of Texas Family Code
Section 161.001(b)(1). The trial court also found that
termination of the parent-child relationship between C.S. and
C.L.S. is in the child's best interest. Based on these
findings, the trial court ordered that the parent-child
relationship between C.S. and C.L.S. be terminated. This
Pursuant to Anders v. California
and C.S.'s counsels filed briefs in compliance with
Anders, stating that each counsel has 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 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, counsels' briefs present a professional
evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no
reversible grounds on appeal, 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 A.W.'s and C.S.'s counsels that the
appeals are wholly frivolous. However, we deny
C.S.'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, counsel's
obligations to C.S. have not yet been discharged. See
id. In accordance with In re P.M., counsel for
A.W. has not moved to withdraw. If A.W. and C.S., 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. Dep't ...