G. C. and H. M. v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services Appeal from 250th District Court of Travis County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-22-00438-CV G. C. and H. M., Appellants v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee FROM THE 250TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY NO. D-1-FM-20-004826, THE HONORABLE MARIA CANTU-HEXSEL, JUDGE PRESIDING MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellants G.C. (Mother) and H.M. (Father) challenge a final decree terminating their respective parental rights to a single child, “Megan,” aged two years at the time of final judgment on June 28, 2022. 1 The trial court terminated Mother’s rights under predicates (D) (endangerment), (E) (placement in circumstances resulting in endangerment), (O) (failure to comply with court-ordered service plan) (P) (use of controlled substance), and (R) (contributing to birth of child with addiction to unprescribed controlled substance or alcohol). See Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), (O), (P), and (R). The court terminated Father’s rights to Megan under predicates (D), (E), (O), and (P). Counsel for Mother and counsel for Father have filed briefs concluding that any appeal is frivolous and without merit. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967); 1 See Tex. Fam. Code § 109.002(d); Tex. R. App. P. 9.8. In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 & n.10 (Tex. 2016) (per curiam) (approving use of Anders procedure in appeals from termination of parental rights because it “strikes an important balance between the defendant’s constitutional right to counsel on appeal and counsel’s obligation not to prosecute frivolous appeals” (citations omitted)). These briefs meet the requirements of Anders by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating that there are no arguable grounds for reversal to be advanced on appeal. See 386 U.S. at 744; Taylor v. Texas Dep’t of Protective & Regul. Servs., 160 S.W.3d 641, 646–47 (Tex. App.—Austin 2005, pet. denied) (applying Anders procedure in parental-rights termination case). The counselors have also certified to this Court that Mother and Father were provided with a copy of the respective Anders briefs and notice of the right to file a pro se brief. Neither Mother nor Father filed a brief. Upon receipt of 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). After reviewing the record and the briefing, including the trial court’s findings under subsections (D) and (E), see Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E); In re N.G., 577 S.W.3d 230, 236–37 (Tex. 2019) (per curiam), we find nothing that would arguably support a meritorious appeal. We thus agree with counsel that any appeal is frivolous and without merit. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s final decree of termination. 2 We deny Mother’s counsel’s request to withdraw. A parent’s right to counsel in termination suits extends to “all proceedings in [the Supreme Court of Texas], including the filing of a petition for review.” See In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 (Tex. 2016) (per curiam). Accordingly, the counselors’ respective obligations to Mother and Father have not yet been discharged. See id. If Mother or Father, after consulting with counsel, desire to file a petition for review, counsel should timely file with the high court “a petition for review that satisfies the standards for an Anders brief.” See id. at 27–28. 2 2 __________________________________________ Edward Smith, Justice Before Justices Triana, Kelly, and Smith Affirmed Filed: December 20, 2022 3
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.
