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

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