In the Matter of S.W., a Juvenile v. the State of Texas

• Court: Texas Court of Appeals, 10th District (Waco)
• Decided: February 5, 2026
• Docket: 10-25-00168-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

Court of Appeals Tenth Appellate District of Texas

10-25-00168-CV

In the Matter of S.W., a Juvenile

On appeal from the 474th District Court of McLennan County, Texas Judge E. Alan Bennett, presiding Trial Court Cause No. 2024-171-J

JUSTICE SMITH delivered the opinion of the Court.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

S.W., a juvenile, appeals the trial court’s order of commitment to the

Texas Juvenile Justice Department for an indeterminate period, not to exceed

her nineteenth birthday. Appellant’s appointed counsel has filed a motion to

withdraw, along with a brief in which counsel asserts the appeal is without

merit and there are no arguable grounds for reversal. See Anders v. California,

386 U.S. 738 (1967); In re D.A.S., 973 S.W.2d 296, 299 (Tex. 1998) (orig.

proceeding) (holding Anders procedures apply to juvenile appeals). We affirm

the trial court’s order. Counsel has certified that he advised Appellant and her parents that

counsel filed the motion and brief pursuant to Anders, provided a copy of the

brief, and informed them of their right to review the record and file a pro se

brief. Counsel provided them with a motion for access to the appellate record

with instructions for obtaining the record and informed them Appellant has

the right to ask counsel to file a petition for review on Appellant’s behalf with

the Texas Supreme Court. Neither Appellant nor her parents submitted a

response.

We have independently reviewed the entire record and counsel’s Anders

brief. We agree with counsel’s assessment that the appeal is frivolous and

without merit. We find nothing in the record that could arguably support the

appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s order of commitment to the

Texas Juvenile Justice Department. See In re K.A.E., 647 S.W.3d 791, 792

(Tex. App.—San Antonio 2022, no pet.).

Next, we consider counsel’s motion to withdraw. The Texas Supreme

Court has not directly addressed whether counsel should be allowed to

withdraw in cases involving juveniles where appellate counsel has filed an

Anders brief and motion to withdraw. It has, however, examined the question

of a parent’s right to counsel in termination cases. In In re P.M., that Court

considered the applicable Texas Family Code section governing continued

In the Matter of S.W., a Juvenile Page 2 representation by an appointed attorney ad litem for a parent. Family Code

Section 107.016(2) provides that appointed counsel continues to serve in that

capacity until the earliest of (A) the date the suit affecting the parent-child

relationship is dismissed; (B) the date all appeals in relation to any final order

terminating parental rights are exhausted or waived; or (C) 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. TEX. FAM. CODE ANN.

§ 107.016(2). The Court then held that the right to counsel in termination

cases, from appointment through the exhaustion of appeals under Section

107.016(2)(B), includes all proceedings in the Supreme Court, including the

filing of a petition for review. In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 (Tex. 2016) (per

curiam).

The majority of intermediate courts of appeal that have addressed a

motion to withdraw filed in a juvenile case in which counsel filed an Anders

brief have determined that counsel’s request to withdraw should be denied,

citing In re P.M. See, e.g., In re K.A.E., 647 S.W.3d at 792-93; In re A.H., 530

S.W.3d 715, 717 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2017, no pet.). But, as has been noted

by other courts of appeals, this Court has declined to extend the Texas

Supreme Court’s decision in In re P.M. to Anders appeals in juvenile cases. See

K.A.E., 647 S.W.3d at 792 n.1 (citing In re J.L.C., 582 S.W.3d 442, 444 n.1 (Tex.

In the Matter of S.W., a Juvenile Page 3 App.—Waco 2018, no pet.)); In re T.M., 583 S.W.3d 836, 838 (Tex. App.—Dallas

2019, no pet.) (same). Instead, as we stated in In re J.L.C., we continue to

follow the Texas Supreme Court’s decision in In re D.A.S. See In re J.L.C., 582

S.W.3d at 444 n.1. Furthermore, we look to provisions in the Texas Family

Code addressing a child’s right to counsel in juvenile cases. See TEX. FAM.

CODE ANN. §§ 51.10, 51.101; In re J.L.C., 582 S.W.3d at 444 n.1.

Accordingly, we apply the language in the Texas Juvenile Justice Code

to determine whether counsel’s motion to withdraw filed with an Anders brief

in a juvenile case should be granted. Texas Juvenile Justice Code provisions

regarding continuation of representation vary depending on the stage of

proceedings at which counsel is appointed. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 51.101.

In In re J.L.C., counsel filed an Anders brief and motion to withdraw in the

juvenile’s appeal from an order rendered after a Section 54.05 hearing to

modify a prior disposition. The time frame for continued representation by

counsel where a motion or petition to modify disposition is filed under Section

54.05 is governed by Section 51.101(e). See id. § 51.101(e). Section 51.101(e)

provides that counsel “shall continue to represent the child until the court rules

on the motion or petition, the family retains an attorney, or a new attorney is

appointed.” Id. Thus, in that case, we granted counsel’s motion to withdraw

because Section 51.101(e) does not require representation until the case is

In the Matter of S.W., a Juvenile Page 4 terminated and therefore does not require representation through appeals to

the Texas Supreme Court.1 In re J.L.C., 582 S.W.3d at 444 n.1.

Here, S.W. appeals from the order committing her to the Texas Juvenile

Justice Department. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 54.04. The record shows that

counsel for S.W. was appointed on December 9, 2024. There was a detention

hearing on December 20, 2024. Id. § 54.01. Under the facts of this case,

continuation of counsel’s duty to represent S.W. is governed by Sections

51.101(a) and 54.01(b-1), providing that if an attorney is appointed to represent

a child at the initial detention hearing and the child is detained, “the attorney

shall continue to represent the child until the case is terminated, the family

retains an attorney, or a new attorney is appointed by the juvenile court.” See

id. §§ 51.101(a), 54.01(b-1). The record does not show the family retained an

attorney. Appellate counsel is the new attorney appointed by the juvenile

court, and pursuant to Section 51.101(a), he must continue to represent S.W.

until the case is terminated. See id. § 51.101(a). S.W. has the right to pursue

a petition for review in the Texas Supreme Court. Therefore, not all appeals

1 We note, however, that at least two courts of appeals, while reviewing the appeal of a case involving

a Section 54.05 hearing to modify a prior disposition, relied on In re P.M. to deny the motion to withdraw without mentioning the distinction set out in Section 51.101. See In re J.E.W., No. 12-19- 00287-CV, 2020 WL 2988893, at *3 (Tex. App.—Tyler May 29, 2020, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (per curiam) (counsel’s motion to withdraw denied in appeal from trial court’s order modifying disposition); In re T.M., 583 S.W.3d at 838 (same).

In the Matter of S.W., a Juvenile Page 5 have been exhausted, and this case has not “terminated.” See In re A.H., 530

S.W.3d 715, 717 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2017, no pet.) (citing to Family Code

section 51.101 and applying the reasoning of In re P.M. to determine counsel’s

motion to withdraw should be denied). Therefore, we deny counsel’s motion to

withdraw.

STEVE SMITH Justice

OPINION DELIVERED and FILED: February 5, 2026 Before Chief Justice Johnson, Justice Smith, and Justice Harris Affirmed Motion to withdraw denied CV06

In the Matter of S.W., a Juvenile Page 6