In the Interest of J.W., a Child Appeal from 233rd 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. 02-22-00161-CV ___________________________ IN THE INTEREST OF J.W., A CHILD On Appeal from the 233rd District Court Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 233-702194-21 Before Sudderth, C.J.; Wallach and Walker, JJ. Memorandum Opinion on Rehearing by Justice Wallach MEMORANDUM OPINION ON REHEARING On the court’s own motion, during our plenary power, we withdraw our prior memorandum opinion and judgment of September 22, 2022 and substitute the following opinion (and corresponding judgment). Appellant S.G. appeals from the district court’s order terminating her parental rights to her son, J.W. S.G.’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed an Anders brief concluding that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. 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” (citations omitted)). 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 Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 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). S.G.’s counsel has certified to this court that he provided S.G. 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. We gave S.G. until June 22, 2022 to notify us if she wished to file a pro se response to the Anders brief. We received no response. The Department notified us that it would not file a brief. On September 29, 2022, seven days after our 2 opinion was handed down, we received from S.G. a request for access to the appellate record. We now deny S.G.’s request.1 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 S.G.’s behalf. Our review of the record assures us that any issue that S.G. might raise would be frivolous. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. S.G.’s counsel remains appointed in this case through any proceedings in the Supreme Court unless otherwise relieved of these duties. See P.M., 520 S.W.3d at 27. /s/ Mike Wallach Mike Wallach Justice Delivered: October 27, 2022 We also deny the subsequent rehearing motion filed by S.G.’s counsel. 1 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.
