Court of Appeals of Texas, Twelfth District, Tyler
FROM THE 411TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT TRINITY COUNTY, TEXAS
consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.
appeals the termination of her parental rights. S.M.'s
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 J.R. is the father of H.R. On November 17,
2015, the Department of Family and Protective Services (the
Department) filed an original petition for protection of
H.R., for conservatorship, and for termination of S.M.'s
and J.R.'s parental rights. The Department was appointed
temporary managing conservator of the child, and S.M. and
J.R. were granted limited access to and possession of the
conclusion of the trial on the merits, the jury found, by
clear and convincing evidence, that S.M.'s parental
rights should be terminated. Based on the jury's
findings, the trial court found, by clear and convincing
evidence, that S.M. had engaged in one or more of the acts or
omissions necessary to support termination of her parental
rights under subsections (D), (E), (N) and (O) of Texas
Family Code section 161.001(b)(1). The trial court also found
that termination of the parent-child relationship between
S.M. and H.R. is in the child's best interest. Based on
these findings, the trial court ordered that the parent-child
relationship between S.M. and H.R. be terminated. This appeal
Pursuant to Anders v. California
counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders,
stating that 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, counsel's brief presents a professional
evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no
reversible grounds on appeal, and referencing any grounds
that might arguably support the appeal. 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 counsel is
correct in determining that the appeal is 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 counsel's brief. We
find nothing in the record that might arguably support the
appeal. 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 S.M.'s counsel that the appeal is wholly
frivolous. In accordance with In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d
24, 27 (Tex. 2016), counsel for S.M. has not moved to
withdraw. Accordingly, counsel's obligation to S.M. has
not yet been discharged. See id. If S.M., after
consulting with counsel, desires to file a petition for
review, counsel should timely file with the Texas Supreme
Court "a petition for review that satisfies the
standards for an Anders brief." See
id. at 27-28; see also A.C. v. Tex. Dep't of
Family & Protective Servs., No. 03-16-00543-CV, 2016
WL 5874880, at *1 n.2 (Tex. App.-Austin Oct. 5, 2016, no
pet.) (mem. op.). Accordingly, we affirm the trial
court's judgment. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2.
CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and brief
filed herein, and the same being considered, it is the
opinion of this ...