in the Interest of K. M., Jr. a Child v. Department of Family and Protective Services

Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided June 18, 2019·No. 01-19-00285-CV·Published

Opinion

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: In the Interest of K.E.S.M., Jr., Child; In the Interest of K.G.S.M., a.k.a. K.G.S.M.

Appellate case numbers: 01-19-00285-CV & 01-19-00286-CV

Trial court case numbers: 2017-04805J & 2018-01409J

Trial court: 315th District Court of Harris County

Appellant D.M.’s court-appointed counsel, Steven B. Frazier, filed a brief on June 7, 2019, concluding that the above-referenced related parental termination appeals are frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967); In the Interest of K.D., et al., 127 S.W.3d 66, 67 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, no pet.). However, counsel has not filed a motion to withdraw from representation with the Clerk of this Court. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. Even though an Anders brief in a termination case may not be “good cause” sufficient to justify counsel’s withdrawal, an Anders brief must accompany a motion to withdraw to notify appellant of her rights. See id.; see In the Interest of P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 (Tex. 2016).

In addition, counsel must also inform this Court that he has mailed a copy of his motion to withdraw to her client and informed appellant of her right to review the records and to file a pro se response and, if so, she should immediately file a motion for pro se access to the records. See In the Interest of A.M., 495 S.W.3d 573, 582–83 (Tex. App.— Houston [1st Dist.] 2016, pet. denied) (citations omitted) (denying counsel’s motion to withdraw in termination case, but noting that counsel’s duty to her client extends through exhaustion of all appeals and motion must inform client of right to review records and file pro se response). Because the Clerk of this Court already mailed a form motion for pro se access to the records to appellant, counsel does not need to send the form motion.

Accordingly, the Court orders appellant’s counsel, Steven B. Frazier, to file a motion to withdraw informing appellant D.M. as noted above within 10 days of the date of this order. See TEX. R. APP. P. 6.5, 9; In the Interest of A.M., 495 S.W.3d at 582–83.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: ___/s/ Laura C. Higley____ Acting individually Acting for the Court Date: ___June 18, 2019__

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

in the Interest of K. M., Jr. a Child v. Department of Family and Protective Services, (Tex. Ct. App. 2019).

in the Interest of K. M., Jr. a Child v. Department of Family and Protective Services (in the Interest of K. M., Jr. a Child v. Department of Family and Protective Services) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Anders v. California
386 U.S. 738 (Supreme Court, 1967)
in the Interest of P.M., a Child
520 S.W.3d 24 (Texas Supreme Court, 2016)
In the INTEREST OF A.M. & A.M., Children
495 S.W.3d 573 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2016)