M. W. v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services

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.