O. J. I., Sr. 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. 03-21-00273-CV O. J. I., Sr., Appellant v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee FROM THE 261ST DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY NO. D-1-FM-19-002319, THE HONORABLE MAYA GUERRA GAMBLE, JUDGE PRESIDING MEMORANDUM OPINION O.J.I., Sr., appeals a final order terminating his parental rights to two children, who were five and four years old at the time of trial. Following a three-day jury trial, the district court rendered judgment finding by clear and convincing evidence that multiple statutory grounds support terminating O.J.I.’s parental rights and that termination is in the best interest of the children. See Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), (O), (b)(2). O.J.I. filed timely notice of appeal. O.J.I.’s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw accompanied by a brief concluding that any appeal is frivolous and without merit. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967) (stating that court-appointed counsel who believes appeal is wholly frivolous should file motion to withdraw “accompanied by a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal”); 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). Counsel’s brief meets the requirements of Anders by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating that there are no arguable grounds for reversal to be advanced on appeal. See 386 U.S. at 744; Taylor v. Texas Dep’t of Protective & Regul. Servs., 160 S.W.3d 641, 646–47 (Tex. App.—Austin 2005, pet. denied) (applying Anders procedure in parental-rights termination case). Counsel has certified to this Court that he provided O.J.I. with a copy of the Anders brief and motion to withdraw as counsel and a notice of his right to file a pro se brief. O.J.I. did not file a brief. Upon receipt of 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). After reviewing the record and the briefing, we find nothing that would arguably support a meritorious appeal. We thus agree with counsel that this appeal is frivolous and without merit. We nevertheless deny counsel’s motion to withdraw. In P.M., the Supreme Court of Texas explained that a parent’s right to counsel in termination suits extends to “all proceedings in [the Supreme Court of Texas], including the filing of a petition for review.” 520 S.W.3d at 27. Accordingly, counsel’s obligation to O.J.I. has not yet been discharged. See id. If O.J.I., after consulting with counsel, desires to file a petition for review, counsel should timely file with the high court “a petition for review that satisfies the standards for an Anders brief.” See id. at 27–28. For the reasons stated herein, we affirm the order terminating O.J.I.’s parental rights and deny counsel’s motion to withdraw. 2 __________________________________________ Edward Smith, Justice Before Justices Goodwin, Baker, and Smith Affirmed Filed: October 12, 2021 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.
