Kregg Behrends and JoAnna Behrends v. Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedJune 21, 2002
Docket03-01-00614-CV
StatusPublished

This text of Kregg Behrends and JoAnna Behrends v. Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services (Kregg Behrends and JoAnna Behrends v. Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services) 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
Kregg Behrends and JoAnna Behrends v. Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services, (Tex. Ct. App. 2002).

Opinion

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-01-00614-CV

Kregg Behrends and JoAnna Behrends , Appellants

v.

Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF FAYETTE COUNTY, 155TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 2000V-046, HONORABLE DAN R. BECK, JUDGE PRESIDING

Appellants Kregg and JoAnna Behrends appeal from the trial court judgment terminating

their parental rights in their three minor children. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. ' 161.001 (West Supp. 2002).

Appellants= appointed counsel filed a brief concluding that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. See

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45 (1967); In re E.L.Y., 69 S.W.3d 838, 839 (Tex.

App.CWaco 2002, order) (Anders procedure applies in termination cases, counsel ordered to amend

inadequate Anders brief); In re A.W.T., 61 S.W.3d 87, 88 (Tex. App.CAmarillo 2001, no pet.) (Anders

rationale applies to appointed counsel in termination proceedings); In re K.S.M., 61 S.W.3d 632, 633

(Tex. App.CTyler 2001, no pet.) (same); see also In re D.A.S., 973 S.W.2d 296, 297 (Tex. 1998)

(applying Anders in civil case, a juvenile proceeding). The brief presents a professional evaluation of the

record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.

75, 77-78 (1988); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137, 138 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969); A.W.T., 61 S.W.3d

at 88; K.S.M., 61 S.W.3d at 632-33. A copy of counsel=s brief was delivered to appellants, who were notified of their right to

seek other counsel or file a pro se brief, which they have not done. We have reviewed the record and

agree that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The trial court judgment is affirmed.1

Jan P. Patterson, Justice

Before Justices Kidd, Patterson and Puryear

Affirmed

Filed: June 21, 2002

Do Not Publish

1 Counsel=s motion to withdraw has previously been granted.

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

Related

Anders v. California
386 U.S. 738 (Supreme Court, 1967)
Penson v. Ohio
488 U.S. 75 (Supreme Court, 1988)
In the Interest of AWT
61 S.W.3d 87 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2001)
Gainous v. State
436 S.W.2d 137 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1969)
In re D.A.S.
973 S.W.2d 296 (Texas Supreme Court, 1998)
In the Interest of E.L.Y.
69 S.W.3d 838 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Kregg Behrends and JoAnna Behrends v. Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kregg-behrends-and-joanna-behrends-v-texas-departm-texapp-2002.