In the Interest of Y.D., a child Appeal from 305th Judicial District Court of Dallas County (memorandum opinion )
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
AFFIRM; and Opinion Filed September 8, 2016. S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-16-00410-CV IN THE INTEREST OF Y.D., ET AL, CHILDREN On Appeal from the 305th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 14-01249 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Lang-Miers, Evans, and Brown Opinion by Justice Evans Mother appeals from the trial court’s order terminating her parental rights to her children Y.D. and A.W. Mother’s appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw, along with an Anders brief asserting the appeal is without merit and there are no arguable grounds for reversal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). We affirm the trial court’s judgment. We deny, however, counsel’s motion to withdraw in light of the Texas Supreme Court’s recent opinion, In re P.M., No. 15-0171, 2016 WL 1274748 at *3–4 (Tex. Apr. 1, 2016). The procedures set forth in Anders are applicable to an appeal from a trial court’s order terminating parental rights where, as here, appellant’s appointed counsel concludes there are no non-frivolous issues to assert on appeal. See In re D.D., 279 S.W.3d 849, 849–50 (Tex. App.— Dallas 2009, pet. denied); In re D.E.S., 135 S.W.3d 326, 329 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, no pet.); In re K.D., 127 S.W.3d 66, 67 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, no pet.). A court of appeals is not required to address the merits of each claim raised in an Anders brief or a pro se response. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); In re D.D., 279 S.W.3d at 850 (citing Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 827). Rather, this Court’s duty is to determine whether there are any arguable grounds for reversal and, if so, to remand the case to the trial court so that new counsel may be appointed to address the issues. See In re D.D., 279 S.W.3d at 850. Counsel for Mother filed an Anders brief in which he presents his professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for reversal and concluding Mother’s appeal of the termination of her parental rights is frivolous and without merit. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; In re D.E.S., 135 S.W.3d at 327, 330; In re K.D., 127 S.W.3d at 67. In counsel’s brief, he states he provided Mother a copy of his brief and informed Mother of her right to examine the appellate record and to file a pro se response. Counsel also attached to his motion to withdraw a copy of his correspondence to Mother, forwarded by regular and certified mail, return receipt requested, advising Mother of her right to review the appellate record and to file a pro se appellate brief, and noting that he had enclosed copies of his brief and his motion to withdraw. See In re D.D., 279 S.W.3d at 850. This Court sent correspondence to Mother forwarding a copy of her counsel’s brief, as well as advising her she had the right to review the appellate record and file a pro se response. Mother did not file a pro se response. We independently reviewed the entire record and counsel’s Anders brief. See Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 827. We agree the appeal is frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the record that could arguably support the appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s final order terminating Mother’s parental rights to her children, Y.D. and A.W. We deny counsel’s motion to withdraw because he does not show good cause other than his determination –2– that an appeal would be frivolous. See In re P.M., 2016 WL at *3–4 (in absence of grounds other than the appeal is frivolous, withdrawal may be premature). /David W. Evans/ DAVID EVANS JUSTICE 160410F.P05 –3– S Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT IN THE INTEREST OF Y.D., ET AL, CHILDREN On Appeal from the 305th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 14-01249. Opinion delivered by Justice Evans, Justices Lang-Miers and Brown participating. No. 05-16-00410-CV In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED. It is ORDERED that each party bear its own costs of this appeal. Judgment entered this 8th day of September, 2016. –4–
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.
