J. v. v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: November 25, 2025
• Docket: 03-25-00572-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-25-00572-CV

J. V., Appellant

v.

Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee

FROM THE 428TH DISTRICT COURT OF HAYS COUNTY NO. 24-3141-DCD, THE HONORABLE JOE POOL, JUDGE PRESIDING

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant J.V. (Mother) appeals the district court’s final order terminating her

parental rights to her children, S.L.V., S.R.G., and M.R.G. 1 See Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001. The

case was tried to a jury, which found by clear and convincing evidence that statutory grounds

existed for terminating Mother’s parental rights and that termination of those rights was in the

children’s best interest. See id. § 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), (2).

Mother’s court-appointed attorney has filed a motion to withdraw supported by an

Anders brief, concluding that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. See Anders v. California,

386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967); In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 & n.10 (Tex. 2016) (per curiam)

(approving use of Anders procedure in appeals from terminations of parental rights). The brief

meets the requirements of Anders by presenting a professional evaluation of the record

1 For privacy, we refer to the children by aliases or initials and to the children’s parent as “Mother.” See Tex. R. App. P. 9.8; Tex. Fam. Code § 109.002(d). demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced on appeal. See 386 U.S. at

744; Taylor v. Texas Dep’t of Protective & Regul. Servs., 160 S.W.3d 641, 646–47 (Tex. App.—

Austin 2005, pet. denied). Mother’s counsel has certified to this Court that he has provided

Mother with a copy of the Anders brief and the motion to withdraw and advised her of her rights

to examine the appellate record and to file a pro se brief. To date, Mother has not filed a pro se

brief. The Department of Family and Protective Services has filed a response to the Anders

brief, stating that it will not file a brief but requests the opportunity to file a brief addressing any

pro se response.

Upon receiving an Anders brief, we must conduct a full examination of the record

to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988);

Taylor, 160 S.W.3d at 647. We have conducted an independent review of the entire record,

including the Anders brief submitted on Mother’s behalf. We have found nothing in the record

that might arguably support an appeal, and we agree the appeal is frivolous and without merit.

We have specifically reviewed the district court’s findings as to Mother under subsections (D)

and (E) of Family Code section 161.001(b)(1), and we have found no nonfrivolous issues that

could be raised on appeal with respect to those findings. See In re N.G., 577 S.W.3d 230, 237

(Tex. 2019) (per curiam). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s final order terminating

Mother’s parental rights.

However, the Supreme Court of Texas has held that the right to counsel in suits

seeking the termination of parental rights extends to “all proceedings in th[e 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). Accordingly, counsel’s obligation to Mother has not yet been discharged. See id.

If after consulting with counsel Mother desires to file a petition for review, her counsel should

2 timely file with the Supreme Court “a petition for review that satisfies the standards for an

Anders brief.” See id. at 27–28. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is denied.

__________________________________________ Darlene Byrne, Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Crump and Ellis

Affirmed

Filed: November 25, 2025