In The Interest Of D.S.A., J.N.A., B.S.A., M.N.A., et al, Children Appeal from 330th Judicial District Court of Dallas County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Affirmed; Opinion Filed December 5, 2019 In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-19-00679-CV IN THE INTEREST OF D.S.A., J.N.A., B.S.A., M.N.A., CHILDREN On Appeal from the 330th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DF-16-03637 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Bridges, Nowell, and Evans Opinion by Justice Nowell C.W.1 appeals from the trial court’s final decree appointing the Director of the Dallas County Child Protective Services Unit of the Department of Family and Protective Services as Managing Conservator of her children, B.S.A., J.N.A., and M.N.A.,2 and granting Darlene Butcher actual possession of the children. On appeal, C.W.’s court-appointed attorney filed a motion to withdraw and a brief concluding the appeal is frivolous and without merit. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967); In re D.D., 279 S.W.3d 849, 849–50 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2009, pet. denied) (applying Anders procedure in appeal from termination of parental rights). Counsel’s brief states she served a copy of her motion to withdraw and her brief on C.W., and, in an accompanying letter, informed 1 We refer to appellant, who is the mother of the children, by her initials only. See TEX. FAM. CODE § 109.002(d). 2 Another child, D.S.A., was returned to C.W. C.W. that C.W. has a right to review the record and file a pro se brief if she desires to do so. In addition, this Court provided C.W. with a copy of the Anders brief filed by her counsel and notified her of her right to file a pro se response. C.W. did not file a pro se response. 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 determine whether there are any arguable grounds for reversal and, if so, 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. The brief filed by C.W.’s counsel meets the requirements of Anders by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced on appeal. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; In re D.D., 279 S.W.3d at 849–50. We independently reviewed the entire record and counsel’s Anders brief, and we agree that 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 decree appointing the Director of the Dallas County Child Protective Services Unit of the Department of Family and Protective Services as Managing Conservator of B.S.A., J.N.A., and M.N.A. and granting Darlene Butcher actual possession of the children. C.W.’s counsel filed a motion to withdraw as appellate counsel. In In re P.M., the Texas Supreme Court held that a court-appointed attorney’s duties to a client in a parental rights termination case continue through the filing of a petition for review, and a motion to withdraw filed in the court of appeals may be premature unless good cause is shown. 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 (Tex. 2016) (per curiam). Counsel has not shown good cause for withdrawing from her representation of C.W., and as a result, her obligations have not been discharged. See id. –2– Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is denied. /Erin A. Nowell/ ERIN A. NOWELL JUSTICE 190679F.P05 –3– Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT IN THE INTEREST OF D.S.A., J.N.A., B.S.A., M.N.A., ET AL, CHILDREN No. 05-19-00679-CV On Appeal from the 330th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DF-16-03637. Opinion delivered by Justice Nowell. Justices Bridges and Evans participating. V. In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s final decree is AFFIRMED. The motion to withdraw filed by Sharita Blacknall is DENIED. It is ORDERED that each party bear its own costs of this appeal. Judgment entered this 5th day of December, 2019. –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.
