In the Interest of U.K. III, a Child v. the State of Texas

Court of Appeals of Texas

In the Interest of U.K. III, a Child v. the State of Texas

DecidedOctober 3, 2024

Docket11-24-00183-CV

StatusPublished

This text of In the Interest of U.K. III, a Child v. the State of Texas (In the Interest of U.K. III, a Child v. the State of Texas) 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.

Bluebook

In the Interest of U.K. III, a Child v. the State of Texas, (Tex. Ct. App. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion filed October 3, 2024

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals __________

No. 11-24-00183-CV __________

IN THE INTEREST OF U.K., III, A CHILD

On Appeal from the 326th District Court Taylor County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 11126-CX

MEMORAND UM OPI NI ON This is an accelerated appeal from a final order in which the trial court terminated the parental rights of the mother and alleged father of U.K., III. 1 See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 161.001 (West Supp. 2023). Only the mother, Appellant, filed a notice of appeal. We affirm the trial court’s order of termination. Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw in this court. The motion is supported by a brief in which counsel professionally and conscientiously examines the record and applicable law, and concludes that there are no arguable issues to present on appeal. Counsel certified to this court that he provided Appellant with a copy of the brief, a copy of the motion to withdraw, an explanatory letter, and a copy of the clerk’s record and reporter’s record. Counsel

1 We use initials to refer to the child and the child’s family members. TEX. R. APP. P. 9.8(b). also advised Appellant of her right to object to his motion to withdraw, and to file a pro se brief. See TEX. R. APP. P. 6.5. As such, court-appointed counsel has complied with the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406–08 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Appellant has not filed a pro se response to counsel’s Anders brief. Following the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman, we have independently reviewed the record in this case, and we agree that Appellant’s appeal is frivolous and without merit. However, in light of the Texas Supreme Court’s holding in In re P.M., an Anders motion to withdraw “may be premature” if filed in the court of appeals under the circumstances presented in this case. See In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 (Tex. 2016) (“[A]n Anders motion to withdraw brought in the court of appeals, in the absence of additional grounds for withdrawal, may be premature.”). The court in P.M. held that, in parental termination cases, court-appointed counsel’s duty to his or her client generally extends “through the exhaustion of [all] appeals.” Id. at 27– 28. In this regard, “appointed counsel’s obligations can be satisfied by filing a petition for review that satisfies the standards for an Anders brief.” Id. Accordingly, we deny counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm the trial court’s order of termination.

W. STACY TROTTER October 3, 2024 JUSTICE Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J., Trotter, J., and Williams, J.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Opinion filed October 3, 2024

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals __________

No. 11-24-00183-CV __________

IN THE INTEREST OF U.K., III, A CHILD

On Appeal from the 326th District Court Taylor County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 11126-CX

MEMORAND UM OPI NI ON This is an accelerated appeal from a final order in which the trial court terminated the parental rights of the mother and alleged father of U.K., III. 1 See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 161.001 (West Supp. 2023). Only the mother, Appellant, filed a notice of appeal. We affirm the trial court’s order of termination. Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw in this court. The motion is supported by a brief in which counsel professionally and conscientiously examines the record and applicable law, and concludes that there are no arguable issues to present on appeal. Counsel certified to this court that he provided Appellant with a copy of the brief, a copy of the motion to withdraw, an explanatory letter, and a copy of the clerk’s record and reporter’s record. Counsel

1 We use initials to refer to the child and the child’s family members. TEX. R. APP. P. 9.8(b). also advised Appellant of her right to object to his motion to withdraw, and to file a pro se brief. See TEX. R. APP. P. 6.5. As such, court-appointed counsel has complied with the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406–08 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Appellant has not filed a pro se response to counsel’s Anders brief. Following the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman, we have independently reviewed the record in this case, and we agree that Appellant’s appeal is frivolous and without merit. However, in light of the Texas Supreme Court’s holding in In re P.M., an Anders motion to withdraw “may be premature” if filed in the court of appeals under the circumstances presented in this case. See In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 (Tex. 2016) (“[A]n Anders motion to withdraw brought in the court of appeals, in the absence of additional grounds for withdrawal, may be premature.”). The court in P.M. held that, in parental termination cases, court-appointed counsel’s duty to his or her client generally extends “through the exhaustion of [all] appeals.” Id. at 27– 28. In this regard, “appointed counsel’s obligations can be satisfied by filing a petition for review that satisfies the standards for an Anders brief.” Id. Accordingly, we deny counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm the trial court’s order of termination.

W. STACY TROTTER October 3, 2024 JUSTICE Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J., Trotter, J., and Williams, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

In the Interest of U.K. III, a Child v. the State of Texas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-interest-of-uk-iii-a-child-v-the-state-of-texas-texapp-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack