M. W. v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services
This text of M. W. v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (M. W. v. Texas Department of Family and Protective 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.
Opinion
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-19-00962-CV
M. W., Appellant
v.
Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee
FROM THE 146TH DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY NO. 303,756-B, THE HONORABLE JACK WELDON JONES, JUDGE PRESIDING
MEMORANDUM OPINION
M.W. appeals from the trial court’s final decree terminating her parental rights to
her children.1 See Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001. The trial court found by clear and convincing
evidence that a statutory ground for terminating her parental rights existed and that termination
was in the children’s best interest. See id. § 161.001(b)(1)(E), (2).
On appeal, appellant’s court-appointed attorney has filed a motion to
withdraw and a brief concluding that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. See Anders
v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967); Taylor v. Texas Dep’t of Protective & Regulatory
Servs., 160 S.W.3d 641, 646–47 (Tex. App.—Austin 2005, pet. denied) (applying Anders
procedure in appeal from termination of parental rights). The brief meets the requirements of
1 We refer to appellant by her initials only. See Tex. Fam. Code § 109.002(d); Tex. R. App. P. 9.8. Anders by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no
arguable grounds to be advanced on appeal. See 386 U.S. at 744; Taylor, 160 S.W.3d at 646–47.
Appellant’s counsel provided appellant a copy of the Anders brief and informed her of her right
to examine the appellate record and to file a pro se brief. To date, appellant has not filed a pro
se brief.
Upon receiving an Anders brief, we must conduct a full examination of the
proceedings to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75,
80 (1988). We have reviewed the entire record, including the Anders brief submitted on
appellant’s behalf, and have found nothing that would arguably support an appeal. We agree that
the appeal is frivolous and without merit. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s decree
terminating appellant’s parental rights. We deny counsel’s motion to withdraw.2
__________________________________________ Melissa Goodwin, Justice
Before Justices Goodwin, Kelly, and Smith
Affirmed
Filed: February 25, 2020
2 See In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 (Tex. 2016) (per curiam). If appellant, after consulting with counsel, desires to file a petition for review, counsel should timely file with the Texas Supreme Court “a petition for review that satisfies the standards for an Anders brief.” See id. at 27–28. 2
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
M. W. v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/m-w-v-texas-department-of-family-and-protective-services-texapp-2020.