K. A. v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services Appeal from 146th District Court of Bell County (memorandum opinion )
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-15-00453-CV K. A., Appellant v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY, 146TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 271,615-B, HONORABLE JACK WELDON JONES, JUDGE PRESIDING MEMORANDUM OPINION K.A. appeals from the trial court’s order terminating his parental rights to his minor children, K.R.A. and T.D.M.A.1 See Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001. Following a jury trial, the trial court entered judgment in accordance with the jury’s findings by clear and convincing evidence that statutory grounds for terminating K.A.’s parental rights existed and that termination was in the children’s best interest. See id. § 161.001(1)(E), (N), (O), (2). On appeal, K.A.’s court-appointed attorney has filed a motion to withdraw and a brief concluding that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967); Taylor v. Texas Dep’t of Protective & Regulatory Servs., 160 S.W.3d 641, 646–47 (Tex. App.—Austin 2005, pet. denied) (applying Anders procedure in appeal from termination of parental 1 We refer to the father and his children by their initials only. See Tex. Fam. Code § 109.002(d); Tex. R. App. P. 9.8. rights). The brief 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 386 U.S. at 744; Taylor, 160 S.W.3d at 646–47. Appellant’s counsel has certified to this Court that he provided K.A. with a copy of the Anders brief and motion to withdraw as counsel and informed him of his right to examine the appellate record and to file a pro se brief. The Department of Family and Protective Services has filed a response to the Anders brief, indicating it will not file a brief unless it deems a brief necessary after review of any pro se brief or unless requested to do so by this Court. To date, K.A. has not filed a pro se brief. Upon receiving an Anders brief, we must conduct a full examination of all of the proceedings to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988). We have reviewed the entire record, including the Anders brief submitted on K.A.’s behalf, and have found nothing that would arguably support an appeal. We agree that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s order terminating K.A.’s parental rights and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw as counsel. _____________________________________________ Melissa Goodwin, Justice Before Justices Puryear, Goodwin, and Bourland Affirmed Filed: October 13, 2015 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.
