In the Interest of M.C., a Child Appeal from 323rd District Court of Tarrant County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth ___________________________ No. 02-18-00245-CV ___________________________ IN THE INTEREST OF M.C., A CHILD On Appeal from the 323rd District Court Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 323-105954-17 Before Sudderth, C.J.; Gabriel and Kerr, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Sudderth MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant Mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her child, M.C. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001 (West Supp. 2018). Mother’s courtappointed appellate counsel filed a motion to withdraw as counsel and a brief in support of that motion. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967); In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 (Tex. 2016), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 1562 (2018). Counsel’s brief and motion meet the requirements of Anders v. California by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for relief. See 386 U.S. at 741–42, 87 S. Ct. at 1399. Although given the opportunity, Mother has not filed a response. As the reviewing appellate court, we must independently examine the record to decide whether counsel is correct in determining that an appeal in this case is frivolous. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); In re K.R.C., 346 S.W.3d 618, 619 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2009, no pet.). Having carefully reviewed the record and the Anders brief, we agree with counsel that the appeal is frivolous. See K.R.C., 346 S.W.3d at 619. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support Mother’s appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s order. We deny Mother’s counsel’s motion to withdraw in light of P.M. because the brief does not show “good cause” other than counsel’s determination that an appeal would be frivolous. See 520 S.W.3d at 27 (“[A]n Anders motion to withdraw brought in the court of appeals, in the absence of additional grounds for withdrawal, may be 2 premature.”); In re A.M., 495 S.W.3d 573, 582–83 & n.2 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2016, pets. denied) (noting that since P.M. was handed down, “most courts of appeals affirming parental termination orders after receiving Anders briefs have denied the attorney’s motion to withdraw”). The supreme court has held that in cases such as this, “appointed counsel’s obligations [in the supreme court] can be satisfied by filing a petition for review that satisfies the standards for an Anders brief.” P.M., 520 S.W.3d at 27–28. /s/ Bonnie Sudderth Bonnie Sudderth Chief Justice Delivered: November 29, 2018 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.
