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

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: December 11, 2025
• Docket: 03-25-00633-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-25-00633-CV

T. M., Appellant

v.

Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee

FROM THE 425TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY NO. 24-0012-CPS425, THE HONORABLE BETSY F. LAMBETH, JUDGE PRESIDING

MEMORANDUM OPINION

T.M. appeals the trial court’s Order of Termination, which terminates her parental

rights to daughters S.C. and A.M. T.M.’s attorney on appeal has filed an Anders brief, concluding

that T.M.’s 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 (Tex. 2016) (per curiam) (approving use of Anders

procedure in appeal from judgment terminating parental rights).

The Anders brief meets the necessary requirements by presenting a professional

evaluation of the record and 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). In connection with the Anders brief that T.M.’s

appellate attorney has filed, the attorney has certified to this Court that he has provided T.M. with a copy of the brief. To date, T.M. has not filed a pro se brief. The Department has a filed a

response stating that it will not file a brief regarding T.M.’s appeal unless requested by this Court.

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 T.M.’s behalf, and have found nothing in the record that

might arguably support an appeal. Our review included the trial court’s endangerment findings

against T.M. under Paragraphs (D) and (E), 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). We agree that T.M.’s appeal is frivolous and without merit.

We affirm the trial court’s Order of Termination. T.M.’s counsel’s motion to

withdraw is denied.1

__________________________________________ Chari L. Kelly, Justice

Before Justices Triana, Kelly, and Theofanis

Affirmed

Filed: December 11, 2025

1 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 that Court], 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 T.M. has not yet been discharged. See id. If after consulting with counsel, T.M. desires to petition for review, her counsel should timely file with the Supreme Court “a petition for review that satisfies the standards for an Anders brief.” See id. at 27–28. 2