In the Interest of A. F. AKA A. N. F. a Child v. Department of Family and Protective Service

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: July 9, 2024
• Docket: 01-24-00075-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

Opinion issued July 9, 2024

In The

Court of Appeals For The

First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-24-00075-CV ——————————— IN RE A.F. A/K/A A.N.F., A CHILD

On Appeal from the 313th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 2018-05250J

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Father appeals the trial court’s order terminating his parental rights to A.F.

a/k/a A.N.F. Father’s court-appointed appellate counsel filed a notice of appeal on

the father’s behalf and has since filed a brief stating in his professional opinion that

the appeal is without merit and that there are no arguable grounds for reversal. See

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). Because we find no meritorious issues after an independent review of the record, we affirm the trial court’s

judgment.

The Anders procedures apply in termination of parental rights cases. In re

J.S., 584 S.W.3d 622, 638 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2019, no pet.). Counsel

filed a brief stating that he has complied with all Anders requirements. The Clerk

of this Court attempted to independently notify Father that his counsel had filed an

Anders brief, that he had the right to file a pro se response, and that he was entitled

to a copy of the appellate record to assist in preparing his response. The letter was

returned undeliverable. This Court ordered father’s counsel to file with the court a

copy of his notice to father of father’s right to file a pro se response, an updated

address for father, if any, and an updated confirmation of father’s receipt of the

record. On May 14, 2024, Father’s counsel filed copies of two letters that were

mailed and emailed to father, notifying him of his right to file a pro se response to

the Anders brief and including a form motion for access to the record. Father’s

counsel also filed copies of two emails providing father with copies of the

appellate record. Father has not filed a response.

Counsel’s Anders brief states his professional opinion that no arguable

grounds for reversal of the trial court’s termination order exist and that any appeal

would therefore lack merit and be frivolous. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744.

Counsel’s brief meets the minimum Anders requirements by presenting a

2 professional evaluation of the record and stating why there are no arguable grounds

for reversal on appeal. See id.; In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2008) (stating purpose of Anders brief is to assure appellate court that

appointed attorney has made thorough and conscientious examination of record,

provided court with appropriate facts of case and procedural history, and pointed

out any arguable points of error).

When we receive an Anders brief from the appellant’s appointed attorney

who asserts that no arguable grounds for appeal exist, we must determine that issue

independently by conducting our own review of the entire record. Johnson v. Dep’t

of Family & Protective Servs., No. 01-08-00749-CV, 2010 WL 5186806, at *1

(Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Dec. 23, 2010, no pet.) (mem. op.). If we

determine that arguable grounds for appeal exist, we abate the appeal and remand

the case to the trial court to allow the appointed attorney to withdraw. Id. at *2.

Then, the trial court appoints another attorney to present all arguable grounds for

appeal. Id. But if, after independently reviewing the record, we conclude that the

appeal is frivolous, we may affirm the trial court’s termination judgment by issuing

an opinion explaining that we have reviewed the record and found no reversible

error. Id. The parent may challenge that holding by filing a petition for review with

the Texas Supreme Court. Id.

3 We have independently reviewed the entire record and counsel’s Anders

brief and agree with counsel’s assessment that the appeal is frivolous and without

merit. In re A.M., 495 S.W.3d 573, 582 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2016,

pets. denied). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s termination decree as to

father.

We note that father’s court-appointed appellate counsel maintains his duty to

his client through the exhaustion or waiver of “all appeals.” TEX. FAM. CODE

§ 107.016(3)(B). Accordingly, if father wishes to pursue an appeal to the Supreme

Court of Texas, “appointed counsel’s obligations can be satisfied by filing a

petition for review that satisfies the standards for an Anders brief.” In re P.M., 520

S.W.3d 24, 27–28 (Tex. 2016).

Conclusion

We affirm the trial court’s order terminating Father’s parental rights to A.F.

a/k/a A.N.F.

Peter Kelly Justice

Panel consists of Chief Justice Adams and Justices Kelly and Goodman.