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

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