In the Interest of N.A. v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: July 31, 2025
• Docket: 09-25-00095-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

________________

NO. 09-25-00095-CV ________________

IN THE INTEREST OF N.A.

________________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 279th District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. 23DCFM0731 ________________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her

children, N.A., S.A., and R.E. 1 See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001. Appellant

Father also appeals the termination of his parental rights to his children, S.A. and

R.E. 2 The trial court found, by clear and convincing evidence, that statutory grounds

1 To protect the minor children’s identity, we refer to them by their initials. See Tex. R. App. P. 9.8(b)(2). 2 The trial court also terminated the parental rights of N.A.’s father, but he is not a party to this appeal. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.002(b)(1). 1 exist for termination and that termination is in the best interest of the children. See

Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), (2).

Appellants’ court-appointed appellate attorneys submitted briefs in which

they contend there are no meritorious issues for appeal. See Anders v. California,

386 U.S. 738 (1967); In re L.D.T., 161 S.W.3d 728, 731 (Tex. App.— Beaumont

2005, no pet.). Both counsel contemporaneously filed motions to withdraw. The

briefs provide the attorneys’ professional evaluation of the record, discuss the

evidence at trial and the applicable legal standard, the trial court’s ruling, and why

the trial court’s ruling is supported by sufficient evidence. Both attorneys conclude

there are no arguable grounds to be advanced on appeal. They certified that their

respective clients were served with a copy of the applicable Anders brief. This Court

notified Appellants of their right to file a pro se response, as well as the deadlines

for doing so. This Court received no pro-se response from either Appellant. We have

independently reviewed the entire record and counsels’ briefs, and we conclude that

there are no arguable grounds for review, that no reversible error exists, and that

Appellants’ appeals are frivolous. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744 (emphasizing that the

reviewing court—and not counsel—determines, after full examination of

proceedings, whether the appeal is wholly frivolous). As a result, we affirm the trial

court’s termination of Appellants’ parental rights. We further find no arguable error

2 requiring us to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief this appeal. Compare

Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).

But we deny the motions to withdraw because this is a parental termination

case and counsels’ motions to withdraw do not show “good cause” for withdrawal.

See In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 (Tex. 2016) (In a parental termination case when

the attorney files an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw, “an Anders motion to

withdraw brought in the court of appeals, in the absence of additional grounds for

withdrawal, may be premature.”). An attorney appointed under section

107.013(a)(1) of the Texas Family Code continues to represent an indigent parent as

outlined under section 107.016 of the Texas Family Code until the earliest of either

the date the suit is dismissed, the date that all appeals in relation to any final order

terminating parental rights are exhausted or waived, or the date the attorney is

relieved of the attorney’s duties or replaced by another attorney after a finding of

good cause is rendered by the court on the record. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. §§

107.013(a)(1), 107.016(2); In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d at 27–28.3

3 We note that if either Appellant decides to pursue review by the Supreme Court of Texas, counsel may satisfy their obligations to Appellants “by filing a petition for review that satisfies the standards for an Anders brief.” In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 (Tex. 2016). 3 AFFIRMED.

JAY WRIGHT Justice

Submitted on July 23, 2025 Opinion Delivered July 31, 2025

Before Golemon, C.J., Wright and Chambers, JJ.