In the Interest of A.A.G., E.M.G., M.S.G. and L.O.G., Children v. the State of Texas

Tex. App. Ct., 8th Dist. (El Paso)

In the Interest of A.A.G., E.M.G., M.S.G. and L.O.G., Children v. the State of Texas

Texas Court of Appeals, 8th District (El Paso)·Decided July 23, 2026·No. 08-26-00191-CV·Published

Opinion

COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

managing conservator of the children. Mother filed a notice of appeal and the trial court appointed counsel to prosecute the appeal on her behalf.1 Mother’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief asserting that there are no non-

frivolous issues to raise on appeal, in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). See In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 & n.10 (Tex. 2016) (per curiam) (recognizing that Anders procedures apply in parental termination cases); Int. of S.G., No. 08-25-00092-CV, 2025 WL 1911996, at *1 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2025, pet. denied) (same). The brief meets the Anders requirements by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating why no arguable grounds may be advanced on appeal. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744–45. Mother’s counsel also provided a copy of the brief to Mother, informed Mother of her right to file a pro se response, provided Mother with a copy of the appellate record, and informed Mother “of her right to ask [counsel] to file a petition for review on her behalf with the Texas Supreme Court should this Court declare her appeal to be frivolous.” The Department has filed a response stating that it would not file a brief in this appeal unless ordered to do so or deems it necessary after reviewing any pro se response. This Court did not order the Department to file a brief, and Mother did not file a pro se response.

As a reviewing court, we must conduct our own independent review of the entire record to determine whether arguable grounds exist for reversal of the parental termination order. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988); In re C.A.S., No. 08-22-00027-CV, 2022 WL 1793919, at *1 (Tex. App.—El Paso June 2, 2022, no pet.) (mem. op.). We have done so here. After carefully conducting our own thorough and independent review of the record and finding no arguable grounds for reversal, we declare the appeal to be frivolous. In re L.M.F., No. 08-19-00291-CV,

1 The trial court also terminated the parent-child relationship between the father and the children. Father is not a party to this appeal.

2020 WL 913843, at *1 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2020, no pet.) (“We agree with counsel’s professional assessment that the appeal is frivolous and without merit.”)

Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s order terminating Mother’s parental rights.

LISA J. SOTO, Justice

July 23, 2026 Before Salas Mendoza, C.J., Palafox, and Soto, JJ.

Footnotes

No. 08-26-00191-CV ———————————— In the Interest of A.A.G., E.M.G., M.S.G., and L.O.G., Children On Appeal from the 65th District Court El Paso County, Texas Trial Court No. 2025DCM0522 M E MO RA N D UM O PI NI O N Appellant, M.Y.J. (Mother), appeals from the trial court’s judgment terminating her parental rights to her children. After holding a bench trial, the trial court found that termination was in the best interest of the children and that the Department of Family and Protective Services had proven grounds for termination under subsections (N) (constructive abandonment of the child) and (O) (using controlled substances in an endangering manner) of § 161.001(b)(1) of the Texas Family Code. See Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001(b)(1)(N), (b)(1)(O), (b)(2). In addition to terminating Mother’s parental rights to her children, the trial court appointed the Department as permanent

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

managing conservator of the children. Mother filed a notice of appeal and the trial court appointed counsel to prosecute the appeal on her behalf.1 Mother’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief asserting that there are no non-

frivolous issues to raise on appeal, in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). See In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 & n.10 (Tex. 2016) (per curiam) (recognizing that Anders procedures apply in parental termination cases); Int. of S.G., No. 08-25-00092-CV, 2025 WL 1911996, at *1 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2025, pet. denied) (same). The brief meets the Anders requirements by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating why no arguable grounds may be advanced on appeal. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744–45. Mother’s counsel also provided a copy of the brief to Mother, informed Mother of her right to file a pro se response, provided Mother with a copy of the appellate record, and informed Mother “of her right to ask [counsel] to file a petition for review on her behalf with the Texas Supreme Court should this Court declare her appeal to be frivolous.” The Department has filed a response stating that it would not file a brief in this appeal unless ordered to do so or deems it necessary after reviewing any pro se response. This Court did not order the Department to file a brief, and Mother did not file a pro se response.

As a reviewing court, we must conduct our own independent review of the entire record to determine whether arguable grounds exist for reversal of the parental termination order. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988); In re C.A.S., No. 08-22-00027-CV, 2022 WL 1793919, at *1 (Tex. App.—El Paso June 2, 2022, no pet.) (mem. op.). We have done so here. After carefully conducting our own thorough and independent review of the record and finding no arguable grounds for reversal, we declare the appeal to be frivolous. In re L.M.F., No. 08-19-00291-CV,

1 The trial court also terminated the parent-child relationship between the father and the children. Father is not a party to this appeal.

2020 WL 913843, at *1 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2020, no pet.) (“We agree with counsel’s professional assessment that the appeal is frivolous and without merit.”)

Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s order terminating Mother’s parental rights.

LISA J. SOTO, Justice

July 23, 2026 Before Salas Mendoza, C.J., Palafox, and Soto, JJ.

Footnotes

No. 08-26-00191-CV ———————————— In the Interest of A.A.G., E.M.G., M.S.G., and L.O.G., Children On Appeal from the 65th District Court El Paso County, Texas Trial Court No. 2025DCM0522 M E MO RA N D UM O PI NI O N Appellant, M.Y.J. (Mother), appeals from the trial court’s judgment terminating her parental rights to her children. After holding a bench trial, the trial court found that termination was in the best interest of the children and that the Department of Family and Protective Services had proven grounds for termination under subsections (N) (constructive abandonment of the child) and (O) (using controlled substances in an endangering manner) of § 161.001(b)(1) of the Texas Family Code. See Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001(b)(1)(N), (b)(1)(O), (b)(2). In addition to terminating Mother’s parental rights to her children, the trial court appointed the Department as permanent

In the Interest of A.A.G., E.M.G., M.S.G. and L.O.G., Children v. the State of Texas, (Tex. Ct. App. 2026).

Pincite

In the Interest of A.A.G., E.M.G., M.S.G. and L.O.G., Children v. the State of Texas (In the Interest of A.A.G., E.M.G., M.S.G. and L.O.G., Children v. the State of Texas) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related