T. Y. J. v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services Appeal from 261st District Court of Travis County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-18-00350-CV T. Y. J., Appellant v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 261ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. D-1-FM-16-005029, HONORABLE ORLINDA NARANJO, JUDGE PRESIDING MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant T.Y.J. appeals from the trial court’s order terminating her parental rights to her child. See Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001. Following a bench trial, the trial court found by clear and convincing evidence that statutory grounds existed for terminating T.Y.J.’s parental rights and that termination was in the child’s best interest. See id. §§ 161.001(b)(2), 161.003. Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a brief concluding that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967); In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 & n.10 (Tex. 2016) (per curiam) (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 386 U.S. at 744; 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 parentaltermination case). Appellant’s counsel has certified to this Court that he has provided appellant with a copy of the Anders brief and information regarding where she may obtain a copy of the record and has informed appellant of her right to file a pro se brief. The Department of Family and Protective Services has filed a response to the Anders brief waiving its right to file an appellee’s brief but requesting that it be afforded an opportunity to respond to a pro se brief filed by appellant. To date, no pro se brief has been filed. We have conducted a full examination of all of the proceedings to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous, as we must when presented with an Anders brief. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988). After reviewing the record and the Anders brief, we find nothing in the record that would arguably support T.Y.J.’s appeal. We agree with appellant’s counsel that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s order terminating the parental rights of T.Y.J.1 1 The Anders brief includes a request by counsel to withdraw. The Texas Supreme Court has held that the 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.” In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27–28 (Tex. 2016) (per curiam). Accordingly, counsel’s obligation to T. Y. J. has not yet been discharged and, therefore, counsel may not withdraw at this juncture. See id. If after consulting with counsel appellant desires to file a petition for review, her counsel should timely file with the Texas Supreme Court “a petition for review that satisfies the standards for an Anders brief.” See id. 2 __________________________________________ David Puryear, Justice Before Justices Puryear, Goodwin, and Bourland Affirmed Filed: October 11, 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.
