In the Interest of B.M.B., Jr., M.B.B., J.M.B., I.J.B., B.B., L.M.B., K.M.B., S.C.B., and M.N.B., Children v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: October 2, 2025
• Docket: 10-25-00186-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

Court of Appeals Tenth Appellate District of Texas

10-25-00186-CV 10-25-00187-CV

In the Interest of B.M.B., Jr., M.B.B., J.M.B., I.J.B., B.B., L.M.B., K.M.B., S.C.B., and M.N.B., Children and In the Interest of A.Y.B., a Child

On appeal from the 474th District Court of McLennan County, Texas Judge E. Alan Bennett, presiding Trial Court Cause Nos. 2023-3310-6 and 2024-808-6

JUSTICE SMITH delivered the opinion of the Court.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The underlying cases were tried together. The trial court terminated

Mother’s parental rights to her ten children under Section 161.001(b) of the

Family Code, based upon both endangerment grounds and failure to comply

with her court-ordered service plans.1 See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN.

§§ 161.001(b)(1)(D), (b)(1)(E), (b)(1)(O). The trial court also found that

termination was in the best interest of each child. See id. at § 161.001(b)(2).

1 In each case, the trial court also terminated the parental rights of the children’s father based on his

execution of an affidavit of voluntary relinquishment. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 161.001(b)(1)(K). Father did not appeal. Mother timely appealed from the termination orders. Mother’s attorney has

now filed an Anders brief in each case asserting that he diligently reviewed the

appellate records and that he believes the appeals are 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.). Though Mother was

granted an extension of time to file her pro se response to counsel’s Anders

briefs, she has not done so.

Counsel’s briefs detail the relevant facts of the cases and their procedural

history, and present a professional evaluation demonstrating why, under

controlling authority, there exists no reversible error in the trial court’s

termination orders. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim.

App. 1991). Counsel also served Mother with a copy of the Anders briefs,

informed Mother of her right to review the appellate records and file a pro se

response, provided Mother with a form motion for pro se access to the appellate

records, and notified Mother of her right to request counsel to file a petition for

review on her behalf with the Texas Supreme Court. See Anders, 386 U.S. at

744; In re A.S., 653 S.W.3d at 299-300. We conclude that counsel performed

the duties required of appointed counsel. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; see also

In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406-08 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).

In the Interest of B.M.B., Jr., M.B.B., J.M.B., I.J.B., B.B., L.M.B., K.M.B., S.C.B., and M.N.B., Children, and In the Interest of A.Y.B., a Child Page 2 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

briefs, and we have determined that the appeals are frivolous. Accordingly, we

affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Counsel’s motions to withdraw as Mother's counsel in each case are

premature and are 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 these cases through any proceedings in the Texas

Supreme Court unless otherwise relieved of his duties. See id.

Conclusion

Having found that Mother’s appeals are frivolous, we affirm the

judgments of the trial court. We deny Mother’s counsel’s motions to withdraw.

In the Interest of B.M.B., Jr., M.B.B., J.M.B., I.J.B., B.B., L.M.B., K.M.B., S.C.B., and M.N.B., Children, and In the Interest of A.Y.B., a Child Page 3 STEVE SMITH Justice

OPINION DELIVERED and FILED: October 2, 2025 Before Chief Justice Johnson, Justice Smith, and Justice Harris Affirmed; Motions denied CV06

In the Interest of B.M.B., Jr., M.B.B., J.M.B., I.J.B., B.B., L.M.B., K.M.B., S.C.B., and M.N.B., Children, and In the Interest of A.Y.B., a Child Page 4