In the interest of Z.K., A.K. and M.K., children Appeal from 29th District Court of Palo Pinto County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Opinion filed March 21, 2019 In The Eleventh Court of Appeals __________ No. 11-18-00302-CV __________ IN THE INTEREST OF Z.K., A.K., AND M.K., CHILDREN On Appeal from the 29th District Court Palo Pinto County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. C47719 MEMORAND UM OPI NI ON This is an appeal from a final order in which the trial court terminated the parental rights of the mother and the father of Z.K., A.K., and M.K. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 161.001 (West Supp. 2018). Both parents filed a notice of appeal. We affirm. Each parent’s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and a supporting brief in which counsel professionally and conscientiously examines the record and applicable law and concludes that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The briefs meet the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406–08 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). In light of a recent holding by the Texas Supreme Court, however, an Anders motion to withdraw “may be premature” if filed in the court of appeals under the circumstances presented in this case. See In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 (Tex. 2016). The court in P.M. stated that “appointed counsel’s obligations can be satisfied by filing a petition for review that satisfies the standards for an Anders brief.” Id. at 27–28. Each counsel provided his/her client with a copy of the respective brief and the motion to withdraw. Counsel also informed the parents of their right to review the record and file a pro se response to counsel’s brief. In compliance with Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 318–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014), each parent’s attorney provided his/her client with a copy of the appellate record. We conclude that both attorneys have satisfied their duties under Anders, Schulman, and Kelly. We note that neither parent has filed a pro se response to counsel’s Anders brief. Following the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman, we have independently reviewed the record in this cause, and we agree that the appeal—as to each parent—is frivolous. However, in light of P.M., we must deny the motions to withdraw that were filed by the parents’ court-appointed attorneys. See P.M., 520 S.W.3d at 27. Accordingly, we deny the motions to withdraw, and we affirm the trial court’s order of termination. March 21, 2019 PER CURIAM Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J., Stretcher, J., and Wright, S.C.J.1 Willson, J., not participating. 1 Jim R. Wright, Senior Chief Justice (Retired), Court of Appeals, 11th District of Texas at Eastland, sitting by assignment. 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.
