From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re L.M.F.

COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS
Feb 26, 2020
No. 08-19-00291-CV (Tex. App. Feb. 26, 2020)

Opinion

No. 08-19-00291-CV

02-26-2020

IN RE: L.M.F. and E.F., Children.


Appeal from the 65th District Court of El Paso County, Texas (TC# 2018DCM8024) MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant O.F. (Father) appealed a judgment terminating his parental rights to children L.M.F. and E.F. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Father is represented on appeal by court-appointed counsel who has filed a brief in accordance with the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 741-44 (1967). Court-appointed counsel has concluded that, after a thorough review of the record, Father's appeal is frivolous and without merit.

In Anders, the Supreme Court recognized that counsel, though appointed to represent the appellant in an appeal from a criminal conviction, had no duty to pursue a frivolous matter on appeal. Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. Thus, counsel was permitted to withdraw after informing the court of his conclusion and the effort made in arriving at that conclusion. Id. The procedures set forth in Anders apply to an appeal from a case involving the termination of parental rights when court-appointed counsel has determined that the appeal is frivolous. See In Interest of P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 n.10 (Tex. 2016)(per curiam)(recognizing that Anders procedures apply in parental termination cases); In re J.B., 296 S.W.3d 618, 619 (Tex.App.—El Paso 2009, no pet.); In re K.R.C., 346 S.W.3d 618, 619 (Tex.App.—El Paso 2009, no pet.).

Counsel's brief meets the requirements of Anders by containing a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating that there are no arguable grounds for reversal of the termination order. See Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex.Crim.App. 1969); Jackson v. State, 485 S.W.2d 553 (Tex.Crim.App. 1972); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex.Crim.App. 1974).

Upon receiving an Anders brief, we are required to conduct a full examination of all the proceedings to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988). We have thoroughly reviewed the entire record, including the Anders brief, and we have found nothing that would arguably support an appeal. We agree with counsel's professional assessment that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. Because there is nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal, a further discussion of the arguable grounds advanced in the brief filed by court-appointed counsel would add nothing to the jurisprudence of the state. The final order terminating Father's parental rights is affirmed.

In the prayer section of the Anders brief, counsel for O.F. asks this Court to relieve her of this appointment and allow her to withdraw. Based on Texas Supreme Court precedent, we cannot do so at this time. Upon determining that counsel has fully complied with the requirements of Anders and Kelly and finding that the appeal is frivolous following an independent review of the record, intermediate appellate courts typically grant motions to withdraw in criminal cases. Granting the motion to withdraw relieves counsel of any obligation to continue with a frivolous appeal. In Interest of D.C., 573 S.W.3d 860, 864 (Tex.App.—El Paso 2019, no pet.). The Texas Supreme Court has determined, however, that we must deny counsel's motion to withdraw in this parental rights termination case because a parent's statutory right to counsel in suits seeking termination of parental rights extends to all proceedings in the Texas Supreme Court, including the filing of a petition for review, and counsel's "belief" that the appeal is frivolous does not constitute "good cause" for withdrawal. In Interest of P.M., 520 S.W.3d at 27; see TEX.FAM.CODE ANN. § 107.016(3)(In a suit by a governmental entity seeking the termination of parental rights, an attorney appointed to serve as an attorney ad litem for a parent or alleged father continues to serve in that capacity until the suit is dismissed, the date all appeals from the termination order are exhausted, or the date the attorney is relieved of his duties or replaced by another attorney after a finding of good cause is rendered by the court.).

Accordingly, we must deny counsel's motion to withdraw. See In Interest of P.M., 520 S.W.3d at 27. In the event Father advises appointed counsel that he wishes to challenge our decision by filing a petition for review, "counsel's obligations can be satisfied by filing a petition for review that satisfies the standards for an Anders brief." Id. at 27-28. Counsel's motion to withdraw is denied.

CONCLUSION

We affirm the trial court's judgment. February 26, 2020

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Justice Before Rodriguez, J., Palafox, J., and McClure, Senior Judge
McClure, Senior Judge (Sitting by Assignment)


Summaries of

In re L.M.F.

COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS
Feb 26, 2020
No. 08-19-00291-CV (Tex. App. Feb. 26, 2020)
Case details for

In re L.M.F.

Case Details

Full title:IN RE: L.M.F. and E.F., Children.

Court:COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS

Date published: Feb 26, 2020

Citations

No. 08-19-00291-CV (Tex. App. Feb. 26, 2020)