In the Interest of J.L.O., C.L.O., K.H.O., L.G.O., K.L.O., and R.F.O., Children v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: April 11, 2024
• Docket: 10-23-00401-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-23-00401-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF J.L.O., C.L.O., K.H.O., L.G.O., K.L.O., AND R.F.O., CHILDREN,

From the County Court at Law No. 1 Ellis County, Texas Trial Court No. 109816CCL

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services filed a petition seeking

to terminate Father and Mother’s parental rights to their six children. After a bench trial,

the trial court terminated Father’s parental rights under Texas Family Code Sections

161.001(b)(1)(D), (b)(1)(E), (b)(1)(O), and (b)(1)(P), and found termination was in the best

interest of each of the children.1 See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. §§ 161.001(b)(1)(D), (b)(1)(E),

(b)(1)(O), (b)(1)(P), (b)(2). Father appeals this final order.

1Before trial, Mother signed a voluntary relinquishment of her rights to all six children. She does not appeal. Father’s attorney has now filed a motion to withdraw and an Anders brief asserting

that she diligently reviewed the record and that, in her opinion, there are no issues of

arguable merit to present. See generally Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); See Interest

of A.S., 653 S.W.3d 298 (Tex. App.—Waco 2022, no pet.).

Anders Brief

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

evaluation demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to advance on appeal. See

Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Father’s attorney has

provided us with the appropriate facts of the case and its procedural history, and has

carefully discussed why, under controlling authority, there is no reversible error in the

trial court’s Order of Termination. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 n.9 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2008). Counsel has informed us that she has: (1) examined the record and found no

arguable grounds to advance on appeal, (2) served Father with a copy of the Anders brief,

(3) provided a copy of the record to Father, (4) informed Father of his right to file a

response to her Anders brief, and (5) informed Father of his right to request her to file a

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

744; Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); Interest of A.S., 653

S.W.3d at 299-300. By letter, we informed Father of his right to review the record and to

file a response to the Anders brief, but he has not filed a response.

In the Interest of J.L.O., C.L.O., K.H.O., L.G.O., K.L.O., and R.F.O., Children Page 2 Upon receiving an Anders brief, we must conduct a full examination of the

proceedings to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. 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 record

and counsel's brief, and we agree with counsel’s assertion that the appeal is frivolous. See

Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (“Due to the nature of

Anders briefs, by indicating in the opinion that it considered the issues raised in the briefs

and reviewed the record for reversible error but found none, the court of appeals met the

requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1.”). We affirm the judgment of

the trial court.

Motion to Withdraw

Counsel has filed a motion to withdraw as was historically required in order to

comply with the procedures set forth in Anders and its Texas progeny. However, the

Texas Supreme Court has stated that “an Anders motion to withdraw brought in the court

of appeals, in the absence of additional grounds for withdrawal, may be premature.” See

In the Interest of P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 (Tex. 2016). Counsel does not set forth any “good

cause” outside of the filing of the Anders brief in her motion to withdraw. Consequently,

we deny the motion to withdraw. Appointed counsel remains appointed in this case

through any proceedings in the Texas Supreme Court unless otherwise relieved of these

duties. See Id at 27-28.

In the Interest of J.L.O., C.L.O., K.H.O., L.G.O., K.L.O., and R.F.O., Children Page 3 Conclusion

Having found no meritorious issues presented in this appeal, we affirm the

judgment of the trial court. We deny counsel’s motion to withdraw.

STEVE SMITH Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Johnson, and Justice Smith Affirmed Opinion delivered and filed April 11, 2024 [CV06]

In the Interest of J.L.O., C.L.O., K.H.O., L.G.O., K.L.O., and R.F.O., Children Page 4