In the Interest of A.R. and C.R., Children v. the State of Texas

• Court: Texas Court of Appeals, 10th District (Waco)
• Decided: March 19, 2026
• Docket: 10-25-00376-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

Court of Appeals Tenth Appellate District of Texas

10-25-00376-CV

In the Interest of A.R. and C.R., Children

On appeal from the 52nd District Court of Coryell County, Texas Judge Cheryll Mabray, presiding Trial Court Cause No. DC-24-55511

JUSTICE SMITH delivered the opinion of the Court.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The trial court terminated Mother’s parental rights to A.R. and C.R. and

appointed the Department of Family and Protective Services as managing

conservator of the children.1 See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 161.001. Mother’s

attorney has now filed an Anders brief asserting that he diligently reviewed

the record and that he believes the appeal is frivolous. See generally Anders 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.). Mother did not file a pro se

response to counsel’s Anders brief.

1 The trial court also terminated Father’s parental rights to both children. Father did not appeal. Counsel’s brief details the relevant facts of the case and its procedural

history, and demonstrates why, under controlling authority, there exists no

reversible error in the trial court’s termination order. See Stafford v. State,

813 S.W.2d 503, 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We further conclude that

counsel performed the educational duties required of appointed counsel upon

the filing of an Anders brief. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; In re A.S., 653 S.W.3d

at 299-300.

As the reviewing appellate court, it is our duty upon receiving an Anders

brief to independently examine the record to determine whether the appeal is

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 determined that the appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we

affirm the trial court’s order of termination.

Counsel’s motion to withdraw as Mother's counsel is premature and is

denied. See In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 (Tex. 2016). Accordingly, if Mother

desires to file a petition for review, her appellate counsel remains appointed in

this case through any proceedings in the Texas Supreme Court unless

otherwise relieved of his duties. See id.

In the Interest of A.R. and C.R., Children Page 2 STEVE SMITH Justice

OPINION DELIVERED and FILED: March 19, 2026 Before Chief Justice Johnson, Justice Smith, and Justice Harris Affirmed; Motion denied CV06

In the Interest of A.R. and C.R., Children Page 3