A. L. v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services Appeal from 419th District Court of Travis County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-19-00563-CV A. L., Appellant v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee FROM THE 419TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY NO. D-1-FM-17-007487 THE HONORABLE CATHERINE MAUZY, JUDGE PRESIDING MEMORANDUM OPINION A.L. appeals from the trial court’s final decree terminating her parental rights to her child.1 See Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001. Following a bench trial, the trial court found by clear and convincing evidence that statutory grounds for terminating her parental rights existed and that termination was in the child’s best interest. See id. § 161.001(b)(1)(E), (O), (2). On appeal, appellant’s court-appointed attorney has filed 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 rights). The brief meets the requirements of Anders by presenting a professional evaluation of 1 We refer to appellant by her initials only. See Tex. Fam. Code § 109.002(d); Tex. R. App. P. 9.8. 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 she provided appellant with a copy of the Anders brief and informed her of her rights to examine the appellate record and to file a pro se brief. Appellant has filed a pro se brief. The Department of Family and Protective Services has filed a waiver of right to file responses to the Anders briefs and the pro se brief. Upon receiving an Anders brief, we must conduct a full examination 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 appellant’s behalf and appellant’s pro se brief, 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 final decree terminating appellant’s parental rights.2 __________________________________________ Melissa Goodwin, Justice Before Justices Goodwin, Baker, and Kelly Affirmed Filed: December 5, 2019 2 As she acknowledges in the brief, counsel’s obligation to her client has not yet been discharged. See In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 (Tex. 2016) (per curiam). If appellant, after consulting with counsel, desires to file a petition for review, counsel should timely file with the Texas Supreme Court “a petition for review that satisfies the standards for an Anders brief.” See id. at 27–28. 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.
