in the Interest of R.P v. a Child v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services
This text of in the Interest of R.P v. a Child v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (in the Interest of R.P v. a Child v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Motion Denied and Order filed April 2, 2019
In The
Fourteenth Court of Appeals ____________
NO. 14-18-00988-CV ____________
IN THE INTEREST OF R.P.V., A CHILD
On Appeal from the 315th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2017-04151J
ORDER Appellant M.M.D. (Mother) is represented by court-appointed counsel on appeal, Elizabeth M. Bruman. On December 6, 2018, Bruman filed a brief stating the appeal in this cause is frivolous, under the authority of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967). See In re D.E.S., 135 S.W.3d 326, 329–30 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, no pet.) (applying Anders procedures to a parental termination case). On December 7, 2018, Bruman filed a motion to withdraw as appellate counsel based on her Anders brief.
The right to counsel under Family Code section 107.013(a)(1) through the exhaustion of appeals under Family Code section 107.016(2)(B) encompasses all proceedings in the Supreme Court of Texas, including the filing of a petition for review. In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 (Tex. 2016) (per curiam). Once appointed by the trial court, counsel should be permitted to withdraw only for good cause and on appropriate terms and conditions. Id. Mere dissatisfaction of counsel or client with each other is not good cause. Id. Nor is counsel’s belief that the client has no grounds to seek further review from the court of appeals’ decision. Id. Counsel’s obligation to the client still may be satisfied by filing an appellate brief meeting the standards set in Anders v. California and its progeny. See Anders, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396; P.M., 520 S.W.3d at 28.
Bruman’s motion to withdraw in this court, in the absence of additional grounds for withdrawal, may be premature. P.M., 520 S.W.3d at 27. If Bruman has concluded there are no non-frivolous points to urge in a petition for review in the Supreme Court of Texas, she should file in that court a petition for review that satisfies the standards for an Anders brief. See id. (“In this Court, appointed counsel’s obligations can be satisfied by filing a petition for review that satisfies the standards for an Anders brief”).
A petition for review must be filed within 45 days after the following: (1) the date the court of appeals rendered judgment, if no motion for rehearing or en banc reconsideration is timely filed; or (2) the date of the court of appeals’ last ruling on all timely filed motions for rehearing or en banc reconsideration. Tex. R. App. P. 53.7(a). The supreme court may extend the time to file a petition for review if a party files a motion complying with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 10.5(b) no later than 15 days after the last day for filing the petition. Tex. R. App. P. 53.7(f).
Because the only grounds counsel has identified for withdrawal do not constitute good cause, we DENY Bruman’s motion to withdraw.
PER CURIAM
Panel Consists of Justices Wise, Zimmerer, and Spain.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
in the Interest of R.P v. a Child v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-interest-of-rp-v-a-child-v-texas-department-of-family-and-texapp-2019.