In the Interest of K.Z.S., a Child v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: March 27, 2024
• Docket: 04-23-00875-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-23-00875-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF K.Z.S., a Child

From the 57th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2022-PA-01424 Honorable Raul Perales, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Sitting: Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Irene Rios, Justice Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice

Delivered and Filed: March 27, 2024

AFFIRMED; MOTION TO WITHDRAW DENIED

Appellant A.W.C. appeals the trial court’s order terminating her parental rights to her child

K.Z.S. 1 The challenged order includes findings, by clear and convincing evidence, stating

termination of A.W.C.’s parental rights is in K.Z.S.’s best interest and supported by three

independent grounds listed in section 161.001(b)(1) of the Texas Family Code. 2 The trial court’s

order also designates the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services as the child’s

permanent managing conservator. A.W.C. timely appealed the order.

1 To protect the identity of the minor child, we refer to the parent and child by their initials. See TEX. FAM. CODE § 109.002(d); TEX. R. APP. P. 9.8. 2 TEX. FAM. CODE §§ 161.001(b)(1)(D) (knowingly placed or allowed child to remain in conditions endangering child’s physical or emotional well-being); (O) (failed to comply with court-ordered services); (P) (continued to abuse a controlled substance after completion of drug treatment program). 04-23-00875-CV

A.W.C.’s court-appointed appellate attorney filed an Anders brief containing a professional

evaluation of the record and concluding there are no arguable issues to be raised on appeal. See

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 742-44 (1967); In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 n.10 (Tex. 2016)

(per curiam) (stating Anders procedures protect indigent parents’ statutory right to counsel on

appeal in parental rights termination cases and apply in those cases). Counsel also filed a motion

to withdraw explaining she sent a letter to A.W.C. enclosing copies of the brief and motion to

withdraw. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re A.L.H., No. 04-

18-00153-CV, 2018 WL 3861695, at *2 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Aug. 15, 2018, no pet.) (mem.

op.). The letter informed A.W.C. of her right to review the record and to file a pro se brief. The

letter also advised A.W.C. if she wanted to review the record, she must file a motion in this court.

Counsel further provided A.W.C. with a form to request access to the record. We issued an order

setting a deadline for A.W.C. to file a pro se brief. The State subsequently filed a waiver of its

right to file a brief. A.W.C. did not request access to the record, but she did file a pro se brief. After

thoroughly reviewing the record, counsel’s Anders brief, and A.W.C.’s pro se brief, we conclude

the Anders brief satisfies the requirements of Anders v. California and there are no arguable

grounds for appeal. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 742-44 (1967); In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d at 27.

Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s termination order.

In support of her motion to withdraw, counsel asserts the appeal is frivolous and she has

complied with the requirements for an Anders brief. After reviewing the motion, we conclude the

stated bases do not rise to good cause for withdrawal. Counsel’s duty to her client extends through

the exhaustion or waiver of all appeals, including the filing of a petition for review in the Texas

Supreme Court. See TEX. FAM. CODE § 107.016(2); In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d at 26-28. We therefore

deny the motion to withdraw. See TEX. FAM. CODE § 107.016(2); P.M., 520 S.W.3d at 26-28.

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

-2-