In the Interest of Z.D.R.R. and Z.U.C., Children v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: February 16, 2024
• Docket: 05-23-00460-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

AFFIRMED and Opinion Filed February 16, 2024

S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-23-00460-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF Z.D.R.R. AND Z.U.C., CHILDREN

On Appeal from the County Court Kaufman County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 110045-CC

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Burns, Justice Molberg, and Justice Goldstein Opinion by Chief Justice Burns Mother brought this accelerated appeal from the trial court’s modification

order in a suit filed by the Department of Family Services (DFPS) for

conservatorship and for termination of Mother’s parental rights. Following a trial,

the jury determined that each of the children’s fathers should be their respective

child’s sole managing conservator, and the trial court signed an order limiting

Mother’s periods of possession. Mother’s court-appointed counsel filed a notice of

appeal on Mother’s behalf and has since filed a motion to withdraw along with a

brief supporting that motion, stating that in her professional opinion the appeal is without merit and that there are no arguable grounds for reversal. See Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967).

Anders procedures are appropriate in an appeal from a trial court’s final order

in a suit brought by DFPS for the protection of a child, for conservatorship, or for

parental-rights termination, including those in which the parent’s rights are not

ultimately terminated or DFPS does not become the child’s conservator. See In the

Interest of J.C., No. 05-22-00043-CV, 2022 WL 2582546, at *2 (Tex. App—Dallas

July 8, 2022, no pet.) (Anders procedures apply in termination or parental rights

cases, including those in which termination is sought but not granted); In the Interest

of E.L.W., 01-17-00546-CV, 2017 WL 5712545, at * 1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st

Dist.] Nov. 28, 2017, no pet.) (same). An attorney has an ethical obligation to refuse

to prosecute a frivolous appeal. In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2008). If an appointed attorney finds a case to be wholly frivolous, his

obligation to his client is to seek leave to withdraw. Id. Counsel’s obligation to the

appellate court is to assure it, through an Anders brief, that, after a complete review

of the record, the request to withdraw is well-founded. Id.

Here, Mother’s counsel provided Mother with a copy of the Anders brief and

advised Mother of her right to examine the record and file her own response. This

Court separately provided Mother with a copy of the brief and notified her of her

right to examine the record and file a response. Mother has not responded.

–2– In her brief, Mother’s counsel demonstrated that she reviewed the record and

concluded the appeal was without merit and frivolous. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744.

She states that in her professional opinion no arguable grounds for reversal exist and

that any appeal would therefore lack merit. See id. Counsel’s brief meets the

minimum Anders requirements by presenting a professional evaluation of the record

and stating why there are no arguable grounds for reversal on appeal. See id.;

Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409 n.23. We have independently reviewed the record and

counsel’s brief and we agree the appeal is frivolous and without merit.

Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s modification order.

/Robert D. Burns, III/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III CHIEF JUSTICE 230460F.P05

–3– S Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT

IN THE INTEREST OF Z.D.R.R. On Appeal from the County Court, AND Z.U.C., CHILDREN Kaufman County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 110045-CC. No. 05-23-00460-CV Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Burns. Justices Molberg and Goldstein participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s modification order is AFFIRMED.

Judgment entered February 16, 2024

–4–