R. K. S. and I. M. v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services Appeal from 98th District Court of Travis County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-22-00066-CV R. K. S. and I. M., Appellants v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee FROM THE 98TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY NO. D-1-FM-20-001541, THE HONORABLE MADELEINE CONNOR, JUDGE PRESIDING MEMORANDUM OPINION R.K.S. (Mother) and I.M. (Father) appeal from the trial court’s decree of termination following a jury trial. 1 See Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001. The jury found by clear and convincing evidence that statutory grounds for terminating their parental rights existed and that termination was in their child’s best interest. See id. § 161.001(b)(1)(E), (O), (2). On appeal, the parents’ court-appointed attorneys have filed briefs concluding that their appeals are 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 We refer to appellants by their initials or as Mother and Father. See Tex. Fam. Code § 109.002(d); Tex. R. App. P. 9.8. 1 appeal. See 386 U.S. at 744; Taylor, 160 S.W.3d at 646–47. The parents’ attorneys have certified to this Court that they provided copies of the Anders briefs to Mother and Father and informed them of their right to examine the appellate record and to file a pro se brief. Mother has 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 briefs submitted on the parents’ behalf and Mother’s pro se brief, 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)(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). 2 We agree that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s decree of termination. 3 __________________________________________ Melissa Goodwin, Justice Before Justices Goodwin, Baker, and Triana Affirmed Filed: July 15, 2022 Counsel for Father only addressed the jury’s finding under subsection (O) and not its endangerment finding under subsection (E), but we have conducted a full examination of the entire record and agree that the appeal is frivolous. 2 We deny Father’s counsel’s motion to withdraw as attorney of record. See In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 (Tex. 2016) (per curiam). We also deny Mother’s Motion for Appointment of New Appellate Counsel. If Mother or Father, after consulting with counsel, desires to file a petition for review, their 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. 3 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
