in the Interest of I.A.R., a Child

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: January 25, 2023
• Docket: 08-22-00233-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS

§ No. 08-22-00233-CV IN THE INTEREST OF I.A.R., § A CHILD. Appeal from the § 65th Judicial District Court § of El Paso County, Texas § (TC# 2019DCM7904) §

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, R.R. (Father), appeals the trial court’s final order terminating his parental rights

to his child. 1 See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 161.001. After a bench trial, the trial court found by

clear and convincing evidence that statutory grounds for terminating his parental rights existed and

that termination of those rights was in the child’s best interest. See id. § 161.001(b)(1)(N) and (O).

After a thorough review of the record, in an Anders brief, R.R.’s counsel concluded that

R.R.’s appeal is frivolous and without merit. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967).

Counsel certified to this Court that she provided R.R. with a copy of the Anders brief filed on his

1 For the child’s privacy, we will refer to her by an alias and to her family members by their relationships to her or by aliases. See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.8. The parental rights of the child’s mother were also terminated, but she did not appeal. behalf along with a copy of her motion to withdraw. Counsel also advised R.R. of his right to

examine the appellate record and file a pro se brief. To date, R.R. has not filed a pro se brief.

In Anders, the U.S. Supreme Court recognized that counsel appointed to represent the

appellant in an appeal from a criminal conviction had no duty to pursue a frivolous matter on

appeal. Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. Thus, counsel was permitted to withdraw after informing the court

of his conclusion and the efforts made in arriving at that conclusion. Id. As relevant to this cause,

the Supreme Court of Texas has determined that the procedures set forth in Anders apply to an

appeal from a case involving the termination of parental rights when court-appointed counsel has

determined an appeal is frivolous. See In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 n.10 (Tex. 2016) (per curiam);

In re J.B., 296 S.W.3d 618, 619 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2009, no pet.).

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

of the record and demonstrating that there are no arguable grounds for reversing the termination

order. Upon receiving an Anders brief, we are required to conduct a full examination of all the

proceedings to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80

(1988). We have thoroughly reviewed the entire record, including the Anders brief, and found

nothing that would arguably support an appeal. We have specifically reviewed the trial court’s

findings as to R.R. under Texas Family Code § 161.001(b)(1), subsections (N) and (O), and we

found no non-frivolous issues that could be raised on appeal with respect to those findings. See In

re N.G., 577 S.W.3d 230, 237 (Tex. 2019) (per curiam); see also TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. §

161.001(b)(1). We agree with counsel’s professional assessment that the appeal is frivolous and

without merit. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s order terminating Appellant R.R.’s parental

rights.

2 Counsel’s Motion to Withdraw

R.R.’s counsel has filed a motion to withdraw, citing as grounds for withdrawal her filing

of an Anders brief. However, when an Anders brief is filed in a parental termination appeal, the

appellant’s right to appointed counsel extends to “all proceedings in this [Texas Supreme Court],

including the filing of a petition for review.” In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d at 27 (citing Tex. Fam. Code

Ann. § 107.013(a)(1)). Accordingly, counsel’s obligations to R.R. have not yet been discharged.

See id. In the event R.R. advises appointed counsel that he wishes to challenge our decision by

filing a petition for review, “counsel’s obligations can be satisfied by filing a petition for review

that satisfies the standards for an Anders brief.” Id. at 27-28. Accordingly, R.R.’s counsel’s motion

to withdraw is denied.

LISA J. SOTO, Justice

January 25, 2023

Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox, and Soto, JJ.