From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

S. C. M. v. Tex. Dep't of Family & Protective Servs.

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
Aug 31, 2020
NO. 03-20-00295-CV (Tex. App. Aug. 31, 2020)

Opinion

NO. 03-20-00295-CV

08-31-2020

S. C. M., Appellant v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee


FROM THE 395TH DISTRICT COURT OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY
NO. 19-0035-CPSC395 , THE HONORABLE RYAN D. LARSON, JUDGE PRESIDING MEMORANDUM OPINION

S.C.M. appeals from the trial court's order terminating his parental rights to his child. See Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001. Following a bench trial, the trial court found by clear and convincing evidence that statutory grounds for terminating his parental rights existed and that termination was in the child's best interest. See id. § 161.001(b)(1)(D), (N), (O), (2).

We refer to appellant by his initials only. See Tex. Fam. Code § 109.002(d); Tex. R. App. P. 9.8. The parental rights of the child's mother also were terminated in the trial court's order of termination based on her affidavit of voluntary relinquishment of parental rights, see Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001(b)(1)(K), and she is not a party on appeal.

On appeal, appellant'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 briefs meet 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. Appellant's attorney has certified to this Court that he provided appellant with a copy of the Anders brief and informed him of his 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 order terminating appellant's parental rights.

Appellant's counsel has filed a motion to withdraw as counsel. We deny the motion. Counsel's obligations to his client has not yet been discharged. 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.

/s/_________

Melissa Goodwin, Justice Before Justices Goodwin, Triana, and Smith Affirmed Filed: August 31, 2020


Summaries of

S. C. M. v. Tex. Dep't of Family & Protective Servs.

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
Aug 31, 2020
NO. 03-20-00295-CV (Tex. App. Aug. 31, 2020)
Case details for

S. C. M. v. Tex. Dep't of Family & Protective Servs.

Case Details

Full title:S. C. M., Appellant v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services…

Court:TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

Date published: Aug 31, 2020

Citations

NO. 03-20-00295-CV (Tex. App. Aug. 31, 2020)