In the Interest of M.T., a Child v. the State of Texas

• Court: Texas Court of Appeals, 10th District (Waco)
• Decided: May 7, 2026
• Docket: 10-26-00009-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

Court of Appeals Tenth Appellate District of Texas

10-26-00009-CV

In the Interest of M.T., a Child

On appeal from the 474th District Court of McLennan County, Texas Judge Nikki Mundkowsky, presiding Trial Court Cause No. 2024-3522-6

JUSTICE HARRIS delivered the opinion of the Court.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The mother’s appointed counsel filed an Anders brief asserting that the

appeal presents no issue of arguable merit. See Anders v. California, 386

U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967). The procedures set forth in

Anders v. California are generally applicable to appeals of judgments that

terminate parental rights. In re E.L.Y., 69 S.W.3d 838, 841 (Tex. App.—Waco

2002, order). The mother was advised that counsel had filed the brief

pursuant to Anders and that she had the right to file a pro se response with

this Court. The mother was also advised of her right to review the record

prior to filing a response. The mother filed a pro se response with this Court on March 6, 2026, requesting that the termination of parental rights be

overturned, but raising no legal issue.

Counsel included a recitation of the procedural history and relevant

facts in the Anders brief and asserted that counsel had reviewed the record

for any potentially meritorious issues, including jurisdictional issues, and

determined there are no non-frivolous issues to raise in this appeal.

Counsel's brief discusses the sufficiency of the evidence as to each of the

predicate acts upon which the termination was granted, including Sections

161.001(b)(1)(D) and (E), as well as best interest. Counsel's brief includes a

professional evaluation of the record, and we conclude that counsel performed

the duties required of appointed counsel. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; see

also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406-408 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).

Upon the filing of an Anders brief, as the reviewing appellate court, it is

our duty to independently examine the record to decide whether counsel is

correct in determining that an appeal is frivolous. See In re G.P., 503 S.W.3d

531, 536 (Tex. App.—Waco 2016, pet. denied). Arguments are frivolous when

they "cannot conceivably persuade the court." McCoy v. Court of Appeals, 486

U.S. 429, 436, 108 S. Ct. 1895, 100 L. Ed. 2d 440 (1988).

Having carefully reviewed the entire record and the Anders brief, we

have determined that the appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we affirm the trial

In the Interest of M.T., a Child Page 2 court's judgment. Appellant’s Emergency Motion for Temporary Relief, filed

on January 28, 2026, is dismissed as moot.

LEE HARRIS Justice

OPINION DELIVERED and FILED: May 7, 2026 Before Chief Justice Johnson, Justice Smith, and Justice Harris Affirmed Motion dismissed CV06

In the Interest of M.T., a Child Page 3