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

• Court: Texas Court of Appeals, 6th District (Texarkana)
• Decided: June 29, 2026
• Docket: 06-26-00066-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

In the Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-26-00066-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF C.A. AND C.A., CHILDREN

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2 Gregg County, Texas Trial Court No. 2025-673-CCL2

Before Stevens, C.J., van Cleef and Rambin, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice van Cleef MEMORANDUM OPINION

This is an appeal from the trial court’s judgment terminating Mother’s parental rights to

her children, C.A. and C.A.,1 on grounds that Mother (1) knowingly placed or knowingly

allowed her children to remain in conditions or surroundings that endangered their physical or

emotional well-being, (2) engaged in conduct or knowingly placed her children with persons

who engaged in conduct that endangered the physical or emotional well-being of the children,

(3) constructively abandoned the children, and (4) used a controlled substance in a manner that

endangered the health or safety of her children and continued to abuse controlled substances after

completion of a court-ordered substance abuse treatment program.2 See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN.

§ 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), (N), (O) (Supp.). The trial court further found that termination was in

the children’s best interests. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 161.001(b)(2) (Supp.). Mother’s

court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and a brief discussing the

applicable law and evaluating the entire record in this case. Counsel for Mother concludes that

no non-frivolous grounds can be advanced to support reversal of the trial court’s judgment.

Because we agree, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Mother’s counsel has filed a brief stating that he has reviewed the record and has found

no genuinely arguable issue that could be raised on appeal. The brief sets out the procedural

history of the case and summarizes the evidence elicited during the trial court proceedings.

Meeting the requirements of Anders v. California, mother’s counsel has provided a professional

1 We use initials to protect the identities of the children and refer to their parents as Mother and Father. See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.8.

2 The trial court also terminated Father’s parental rights, but he does not appeal. 2 evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced.

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 743–44 (1967); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex.

Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding); see In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 (Tex. 2016) (per curiam)

(recognizing that Anders procedures apply in parental-rights termination cases).

On May 19, 2026, Mother’s counsel mailed Mother copies of the brief, the motion to

withdraw, and the appellate record. Mother was informed of her right to file a pro se response

and has done so.

We have independently reviewed the entire appellate record and Mother’s pro se

response and, like counsel, have determined that no arguable issue supports an appeal. See

Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Accordingly, we have

determined that this appeal is wholly frivolous. Therefore, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Even so, we deny Mother’s counsel’s motion to withdraw. See In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d at

27 (noting that, in parental-rights termination cases, court-appointed counsel’s duty to his client

generally extends “through the exhaustion of appeals,” “including the filing of a petition for

review” in the Texas Supreme Court). If Mother desires to pursue this matter in the Texas

Supreme Court, counsel may fulfill his duty “by filing a petition for review that satisfies the

standards for an Anders brief.” See id. at 28.

3 We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Charles van Cleef Justice

Date Submitted: June 16, 2026 Date Decided: June 29, 2026