In the Interest of S.B.L., Jr., A.S.B.L., and A.M.B.L., Children v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: October 2, 2025
• Docket: 10-25-00139-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

Court of Appeals Tenth Appellate District of Texas

10-25-00139-CV

In the Interest of S.B.L., Jr., A.S.B.L., and A.M.B.L., Children

On appeal from the 474th District Court of McLennan County, Texas Judge Nikki Mundkowsky, presiding Trial Court Cause No. 2024-119-6

JUSTICE HARRIS delivered the opinion of the Court.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Both the mother’s and father’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). Counsel for the mother advised her

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 did not file a pro se response with this Court. Counsel for the father advised him that

counsel had filed the brief pursuant to Anders and that he had the right to

file a pro se response with this Court. The father was also advised of his

right to review the record prior to filing a response. The father did not file a

pro se response with this Court.

Counsel for the mother 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) (N), (O), and (P) 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).

Counsel for the father 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

In the Interest of S.B.L., Jr., A.S.B.L., and A.M.B.L. Page 2 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) (E), (N), and (O) 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.

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 briefs, we

have determined that the appeals of both the mother and father are frivolous.

Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's judgment.

LEE HARRIS Justice

In the Interest of S.B.L., Jr., A.S.B.L., and A.M.B.L. Page 3 OPINION DELIVERED and FILED: October 2, 2025 Before Chief Justice Johnson, Justice Smith, and Justice Harris Affirmed CV06

In the Interest of S.B.L., Jr., A.S.B.L., and A.M.B.L. Page 4