In the Interest of C.T., C.T., K.T., K.T., K.T., K.T., and K.L., Children Appeal from 324th 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. 02-21-00390-CV ___________________________ IN THE INTEREST OF C.T., C.T., K.T., K.T., K.T., K.T., AND K.L., CHILDREN On Appeal from the 324th District Court Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 324-587992-15 Before Sudderth, C.J.; Bassel and Walker, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Bassel MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant A.T. appeals from the district court’s order appointing her possessory conservator of her children, C.T., C.T., K.T., K.T., K.T., K.T., and K.L.; appointing A.T.’s mother, T.L., permanent managing conservator of K.T., K.T., K.T., and K.L.; and appointing A.T.’s sister, D.L., permanent managing conservator of C.T., C.T., and K.T. 1 A.T.’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed an Anders brief, concluding that the appeal is frivolous and without merit, and has filed a motion to withdraw. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967); In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 & n.10 (Tex. 2016) (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”). 2 The brief meets the requirements of Anders by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced on appeal. See id., 87 S. Ct. at 1400; Taylor v. Tex. Dep’t of Protective & Regul. Servs., 160 S.W.3d 641, 646–47 (Tex. App.—Austin 2005, pet. denied). A.T.’s counsel We use aliases to refer to the children and their family members. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 109.002(d); Tex. R. App. P. 9.8(b)(2). 1 Although the Department of Family and Protective Services ultimately did not seek termination of A.T.’s parental rights, the Department’s original petition sought that relief in the alternative to reunification, and the trial court appointed counsel to represent A.T. After trial, the trial court found that A.T. remained entitled to a courtappointed attorney on appeal and appointed appellate counsel. 2 2 has certified to this court that he provided A.T. with a copy of the Anders brief and informed her of her right to examine the appellate record and to file a pro se brief. A.T. declined to file a response. The Department notified us that it would not file a brief. Upon receiving an Anders brief, we must conduct an independent examination of the record to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S. Ct. 346, 350 (1988); Taylor, 160 S.W.3d at 647. We have reviewed the entire record, including the Anders brief submitted on A.T.’s behalf. Our review of the record assures us that any issue that A.T. might raise would be frivolous. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s order. Motion to Withdraw The Texas Supreme Court has determined that we must deny counsel’s motion to withdraw in this parental rights termination case because a parent’s statutory right to counsel in suits seeking termination of parental rights extends to all proceedings in the Texas Supreme Court, including the filing of a petition for review, and counsel’s “belief” that the appeal is frivolous does not constitute “good cause” for withdrawal. P.M., 520 S.W.3d at 27–28; see Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 107.016(2) (stating that in a suit by a governmental entity seeking the termination of parental rights, an attorney appointed to serve as an attorney ad litem for a parent or alleged father continues to serve in that capacity until the suit is dismissed, the date all appeals from the termination order are exhausted, or the date the attorney is relieved of his duties or 3 replaced by another attorney after a finding of good cause is rendered by the court). Accordingly, we must deny counsel’s motion to withdraw. See P.M., 520 S.W.3d at 27–28. In the event A.T. advises appointed counsel that she wishes to challenge our decision by filing a petition for review, “counsel’s obligations can be satisfied by filing a petition for review that satisfies the standards for an Anders brief.” Id. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is denied. /s/ Dabney Bassel Dabney Bassel Justice Delivered: April 7, 2021 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.
