C. R. v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services Appeal from 419th District Court of Travis County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-22-00262-CV C. R., Appellant v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee FROM THE 419TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY NO. D-1-FM-20-004849, THE HONORABLE JAN SOIFER, JUDGE PRESIDING MEMORANDUM OPINION C.R. appeals from the trial court’s final decree terminating his parental rights to his child. See Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001. Following a jury trial, the trial court rendered judgment on the jury’s verdict, finding by clear and convincing evidence that several statutory grounds existed for terminating C.R.’s parental rights and that termination of those rights was in the child’s best interest. See id. § 161.001(b)(1)(E), (O), (2). On appeal, C.R.’s court-appointed attorney has filed an Anders brief concluding that his 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 termination of parental rights). The brief meets the requirements of Anders 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 & Regulatory Servs., 160 S.W.3d 641, 646-47 (Tex. App.—Austin 2005, pet. denied). C.R.’s counsel has certified to this Court that she has provided C.R. with copies of the Anders brief, the clerk’s record, and the reporter’s record and that she has advised C.R. of his right to file a pro se brief. To date, C.R. has not filed a pro se brief. The Department of Family and Protective Services has a filed a response, stating that it will not file a brief 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 C.R.’s behalf, and have found nothing in the record that might arguably support an appeal. Our review included the trial court’s endangerment finding under part (E) of Section 161.001(b)(1) of the Family Code, and we have found no nonfrivolous issues that could be raised on appeal with respect to that finding. 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 final decree terminating C.R.’s parental rights. __________________________________________ Chari L. Kelly, Justice Before Justices Goodwin, Baker, and Kelly Affirmed Filed: October 19, 2022 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.
