In the Interest of J.M.V v. a Child v. the State of Texas

Opinion

Court of Appeals

Tenth Appellate District of Texas

10-25-00479-CV

In the Interest of J.M.V.V., a Child

On appeal from the

474th District Court of McLennan County, Texas Judge Nikki Mundkowsky, presiding Trial Court Cause No. 2024-3276-6

JUSTICE SMITH delivered the opinion of the Court.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The trial court terminated Father’s parental rights to J.M.V.V. and appointed the Department of Family and Protective Services as managing conservator of the child.1 See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 161.001. Father’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 (1967); In re A.S., 653 S.W.3d 298 (Tex. App.—Waco 2022, no pet.). Father filed a pro se response to counsel’s Anders brief, and the State filed its response.

1 The trial court also terminated Mother’s parental rights to J.M.V.V., but Mother 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, counsel’s brief, Father’s pro se response, and the State’s response, 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 Father’s counsel is premature and is denied. See In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 (Tex. 2016). Accordingly, if Father desires to file a petition for review, his 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 J.M.V.V., a Child Page 2

STEVE SMITH

Justice

OPINION DELIVERED and FILED: May 7, 2026 Before Chief Justice Johnson, Justice Smith, and Justice Harris Affirmed; Motion denied Do not publish CV06

In the Interest of J.M.V.V., a Child Page 3