In the Interest of M.G., Jr., a Child v. the State of Texas

Court of Appeals
Tenth Appellate District of Texas

10-25-00206-CV

In the Interest of M.G., Jr., a Child

On appeal from the
52nd District Court of Coryell County, Texas
Judge Cheryll Mabray, presiding
Trial Court Cause No. DC-23-55325

CHIEF JUSTICE JOHNSON delivered the opinion of the Court.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The mother of M.G. (Mother) filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s

order terminating her parental rights to their children. 1 Counsel for Mother

has now filed an Anders brief, asserting that they diligently reviewed the

record and that, in their opinion, the appeal is frivolous. See Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967); In re E.L.Y., 69

S.W.3d 838, 841 (Tex. App.—Waco 2002, order) (per curiam) (applying Anders

to termination appeal).

1
The trial court found by clear and convincing evidence that Mother had violated Family Code subsection
161.001(b)(1)(O) and that termination was in the child's best interest. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 161.001(b)(1).
The legislature recently removed Section O under 161.001(b)(1). See Act of May 28, 2025, 89th Leg., R.S., ch. 211,
§ 2, TEX. GEN. LAWS 573, 574–75 (current version at TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 161.001(b)(1)). The prior version of
the statute controls cases filed before September 1, 2025, and therefore, applies to this case.
Counsel’s brief meets the requirements of Anders; it presents a

professional evaluation demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to

advance on appeal. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 n.9 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2008) (“In Texas, an Anders brief need not specifically advance ‘arguable’

points of error if counsel finds none, but it must provide record references to

the facts and procedural history and set out pertinent legal authorities.”);

Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Counsel has

carefully discussed why, under controlling authority, there is no reversible

error in the trial court’s order of termination. Counsel has further informed us

that he has served appellant with a copy of his Anders brief, informed appellant

of her right to review the appellate record and to file a pro se response, and

provided appellant with a form motion for pro se access to the appellate record.

See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400; Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313,

319–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) ; Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 510 n.3; High v. State,

573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978); see also Schulman,

252 S.W.3d at 408–09. By letter, we also informed Mother of her right to

review the record and to file a pro se response. She did not file a pro se response.

Upon receiving an Anders brief, we must conduct a full examination of

all the proceedings to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous.

Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 349–50, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988).

In the Interest of M.G., Jr., a Child Page 2
An appeal is “wholly frivolous” or “without merit” when it “lacks any basis in

law or fact.” McCoy v. Court of Appeals, 486 U.S. 429, 438 n.10, 108 S.Ct. 1895,

1902 n.10, 100 L.Ed.2d 440 (1988). We have reviewed the entire record and

counsel's brief and have found nothing that would arguably support an appeal.

See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (“Due to

the nature of Anders briefs, by indicating in the opinion that it considered the

issues raised in the briefs and reviewed the record for reversible error but

found none, the court of appeals met the requirements of Texas Rule of

Appellate Procedure 47.1.”); Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 509. Accordingly, we

affirm the trial court’s order of termination.

If Mother, after consulting with her appointed appellate counsel, desires

to file a petition for review, counsel is still under a duty to timely file with the

Texas Supreme Court “a petition for review that satisfies the standards for an

Anders brief.” See id.; In re G.P., 503 S.W.3d 531, 535 (Tex. App.—Waco 2016,

pet. denied); see also TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 107.016.

MATT JOHNSON
Chief Justice

In the Interest of M.G., Jr., a Child Page 3
OPINION DELIVERED and FILED: December 4, 2025
Before Chief Justice Johnson,
Justice Smith, and
Justice Harris
Affirmed
CV06

In the Interest of M.G., Jr., a Child Page 4