Kregg Behrends and JoAnna Behrends v. Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services--Appeal from 155th District Court of Fayette County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-01-00614-CV Kregg Behrends and JoAnna Behrends , Appellants v. Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services, Appellee FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF FAYETTE COUNTY, 155TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 2000V-046, HONORABLE DAN R. BECK, JUDGE PRESIDING Appellants Kregg and JoAnna Behrends appeal from the trial court judgment terminating their parental rights in their three minor children. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. ' 161.001 (West Supp. 2002). Appellants= appointed counsel filed a brief concluding that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45 (1967); In re E.L.Y., 69 S.W.3d 838, 839 (Tex. App.CWaco 2002, order) (Anders procedure applies in termination cases, counsel ordered to amend inadequate Anders brief); In re A.W.T., 61 S.W.3d 87, 88 (Tex. App.CAmarillo 2001, no pet.) (Anders rationale applies to appointed counsel in termination proceedings); In re K.S.M., 61 S.W.3d 632, 633 (Tex. App.CTyler 2001, no pet.) (same); see also In re D.A.S., 973 S.W.2d 296, 297 (Tex. 1998) (applying Anders in civil case, a juvenile proceeding). The brief presents a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 77-78 (1988); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137, 138 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969); A.W.T., 61 S.W.3d at 88; K.S.M., 61 S.W.3d at 632-33. A copy of counsel=s brief was delivered to appellants, who were notified of their right to seek other counsel or file a pro se brief, which they have not done. We have reviewed the record and agree that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The trial court judgment is affirmed.1 Jan P. Patterson, Justice Before Justices Kidd, Patterson and Puryear Affirmed Filed: June 21, 2002 Do Not Publish 1 Counsel=s motion to withdraw has previously been granted. 2
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.
