A. M. 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. 03-21-00110-CV A. M., Appellant v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee FROM THE 146TH DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY NO. 308,935-B, THE HONORABLE JACK WELDON JONES, JUDGE PRESIDING MEMORANDUM OPINION A.M. appeals from the trial court’s final decree terminating his parental rights to his child. See Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001. After a bench trial, the trial court found by clear and convincing evidence that statutory grounds for terminating his parental rights existed and that termination of those rights was in the child’s best interest. See id. § 161.001(b)(1)(L), (Q), (2). On appeal, A.M.’s court-appointed attorney has filed a motion to withdraw supported by an Anders 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). 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, 64647 (Tex. App.—Austin 2005, pet. denied). A.M.’s counsel has certified to this Court that she has provided A.M. with a copy of the Anders brief and motion to withdraw and advised him of his right to examine the appellate record and to file a pro se brief. To date, A.M. has not filed a pro se brief. The Department of Family and Protective Services has filed a response to the Anders brief, stating that it will not file a brief unless requested by this Court. Upon receiving an Anders brief, we must conduct a full examination of the record to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988); Taylor, 160 S.W.3d at 647. We have conducted an independent review of the entire record, including the Anders brief submitted on A.M.’s behalf. We have found nothing in the record that might arguably support an appeal, and we agree the appeal is frivolous and without merit. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s decree terminating A.M.’s parental rights. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is denied.1 __________________________________________ Chari L. Kelly, Justice Before Justices Goodwin, Triana, and Kelly Affirmed Filed: June 4, 2021 1 The Texas Supreme Court has held that the right to counsel in suits seeking the 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 (Tex. 2016) (per curiam). Accordingly, counsel’s obligation to A.M. has not yet been discharged. See id. If after consulting with counsel, A.M. desires to file a petition for review, his 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.
