Court of Appeals of Texas, 2021

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

Court of Appeals of Texas · Decided March 4, 2021

Opinion

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-20-00506-CV

C. V., Appellant v.

Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee

FROM THE 274TH DISTRICT COURT OF HAYS COUNTY

NO. 19-1044, THE HONORABLE DAVID JUNKIN, JUDGE PRESIDING

MEMORANDUM OPINION

C.V. (Mother) appeals from the trial court’s order terminating her parental rights to her children, H.E.N. Jr., J.V., and F.V.N.1 See Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001. Following a de novo hearing, the trial court found by clear and convincing evidence that statutory grounds for terminating her parental rights existed and that termination was in the children’s best interest. See id. § 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), (O), (2).

On appeal, Mother’s court-appointed attorney has filed 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 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. Mother’s counsel has certified to this Court that she provided Mother with 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, Mother 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 Mother’s behalf, and have found nothing that would arguably support an appeal. Our review included the trial court’s endangerment findings, see Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), and we have found no 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). We agree that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s order terminating Mother’s parental rights.2

__________________________________________ Melissa Goodwin, Justice Before Justices Goodwin, Triana, and Kelly

Affirmed

Filed: March 4, 2021

1 We refer to appellant by her initials or as Mother and to the children by their initials. See Tex. Fam. Code § 109.002(d); Tex. R. App. P. 9.8. In this Court’s cause number 03-20- 00507-CV, Mother appeals from the trial court’s order in suit affecting the parent-child relationship concerning her child C.G. 2 We deny counsel’s motion to withdraw as attorney of record. See In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 (Tex. 2016) (per curiam). If Mother, 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.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.