in the Interest of A.G.G., a Child

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: January 25, 2023
• Docket: 08-22-00231-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS

§ No. 08-22-00231-CV IN THE INTEREST OF A.G.G., A CHILD. Appeal from the §

65th Judicial District Court § of El Paso County, Texas § (TC# 2021DCM3172) §

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, C.G. (Mother), appeals the trial court’s final order terminating her parental

rights to her children. 1 See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 161.001. After a bench trial, the trial court

found by clear and convincing evidence that statutory grounds for terminating her parental rights

existed and that termination of those rights was in the child’s best interest. See id.

§ 161.001(b)(1)(E), (O) and (P).

After a thorough review of the record, in an Anders brief, C.G.’s counsel has concluded

that C.G.’s appeal is frivolous and without merit. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744

(1967). Counsel certified to this Court that she has provided C.G. with a copy of the Anders brief

1 For the child’s privacy, we will refer to her by an alias and to her family members by their relationships to her or by aliases. See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.8. The parental rights of the child’s father were terminated, but he did not appeal filed on her behalf along with a copy of counsel’s motion to withdraw. Counsel also advised C.G.

of her right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se brief. To date, C.G. has not filed a pro

se brief.

In Anders, the U.S. Supreme Court recognized that counsel, who had been appointed to

represent the appellant in an appeal from a criminal conviction, had no duty to pursue a frivolous

matter on appeal. Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. Thus, counsel was permitted to withdraw after

informing the court of his conclusion and the efforts made in arriving at that conclusion. Id. As

relevant to this cause, the Supreme Court of Texas has determined the procedures set forth in

Anders apply to an appeal from a case involving the termination of parental rights when court-

appointed counsel has determined an appeal is frivolous. See In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 n.10

(Tex. 2016) (per curiam); In re J.B., 296 S.W.3d 618, 619 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2009, no pet.).

Counsel’s brief meets the requirements of Anders by containing a professional evaluation

of the record and further demonstrating that there are no arguable grounds for reversal of the

termination order. Upon receiving an Anders brief, we are required to conduct a full examination

of all the proceedings to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 488

U.S. 75, 80 (1988). We have thoroughly reviewed the entire record, including the Anders brief,

and found nothing that would arguably support an appeal. We have specifically reviewed the trial

court’s findings as to C.G. under Texas Family Code § 161.001(b)(1), subsections (E), (O) and

(P), and we found no non-frivolous issues that could be raised on appeal with respect to those

findings. See In re N.G., 577 S.W.3d 230, 237 (Tex. 2019) (per curiam); see also TEX. FAM. CODE

ANN. § 161.001(b)(1). We agree with counsel’s professional assessment that the appeal is frivolous

and without merit. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s order terminating Appellant Mother’s

2 parental rights.

Counsel’s Motion to Withdraw

C.G.’s counsel has filed a motion to withdraw, citing as grounds for withdrawal her filing

of an Anders brief. However, when an Anders brief is filed in a parental termination appeal, the

appellant’s right to appointed counsel extends to “all proceedings in this [Texas Supreme Court],

including the filing of a petition for review.” In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d at 27(citing TEX. FAM. CODE

ANN. § 107.013(a)(1)). Accordingly, counsel’s obligations to C.G. have not yet been discharged.

See id. In the event C.G. advises appointed counsel that she wishes to challenge our decision by

filing a petition for review, “counsel’s obligations can be satisfied by filing a petition for review

that satisfies the standards for an Anders brief.” Id. at 27-28. Accordingly, C.G.’s counsel’s motion

to withdraw is denied.

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Chief Justice

January 25, 2023

Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox, and Soto, JJ.