In the Interest of A.O., a Child v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: December 30, 2024
• Docket: 10-24-00240-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-24-00240-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF A.O., A CHILD

From the 77th District Court Limestone County, Texas Trial Court No. CPS-416-A

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (“the Department”) filed

a petition seeking to terminate Mother’s parental rights to A.O. Following a bench trial,

the trial court terminated Mother’s parental rights under Texas Family Code Sections

161.001(b)(1)(D) and (b)(1)(E) and found that termination was in the best interest of A.O.1

See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. §§ 161.001(b)(1)(D), (b)(1)(E), (b)(2). Mother appealed.

Mother’s attorney has now filed an Anders brief asserting that she diligently

reviewed the record and that she believes the appeal to be frivolous. See generally Anders

1 The Department also sought to terminate the parental rights of A.O.’s unknown father. The unknown father has not appealed the trial court’s termination of his parental rights to A.O. v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967); In re A.S., 653 S.W.3d 298

(Tex. App.—Waco 2022, no pet.). We affirm.

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

evaluation demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to advance on appeal. See

Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Counsel has provided us

with the appropriate facts of the case and its procedural history, and has discussed why,

under controlling authority, there is no reversible error in the trial court’s termination

order. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 n.9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Further, counsel

informed us that she has examined the record and found no arguable grounds to advance

on appeal, served Mother with a copy of the Anders brief, provided a copy of the appellate

record to Mother, and informed Mother of her right to file a response to the Anders brief.

See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In

re A.S., 653 S.W.3d at 299-300. By letter, we informed Mother of her right to review the

appellate record and to file a response to the Anders brief filed by her appellate counsel.

Mother did not file a pro se response.

Upon receiving an Anders brief, we must conduct a full examination of the

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

U.S. 75, 80 (1988). Arguments are frivolous when they “cannot conceivably persuade the

court.” McCoy v. Court of Appeals, 486 U.S. 429, 436 (1988). We have reviewed the entire

record and counsel’s brief, and we have found nothing that would arguably support an

In the Interest of A.O., a Child Page 2 appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We affirm the

judgment of the trial court terminating Mother’s parental rights to A.O.

Counsel’s duty to her client extends through the exhaustion or waiver of “all

appeals.” TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 107.016(2)(B). Consequently, if Mother, after consulting

with counsel, desires to file a petition for review to the Texas Supreme Court, counsel’s

obligations can be satisfied by filing “a petition for review that satisfies the standards for

an Anders brief.” See In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27-28 (Tex. 2016).

Conclusion

Having found no meritorious issues presented in this appeal, we affirm the

judgment of the trial court.

STEVE SMITH Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Johnson, and Justice Smith Affirmed Opinion delivered and filed December 30, 2024 [CV06]

In the Interest of A.O., a Child Page 3