In the Interest of U.K. III, a Child v. the State of Texas

Opinion filed October 3, 2024

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals
__________

No. 11-24-00183-CV
__________

IN THE INTEREST OF U.K., III, A CHILD

On Appeal from the 326th District Court
Taylor County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 11126-CX

MEMORAND UM OPI NI ON
This is an accelerated appeal from a final order in which the trial court
terminated the parental rights of the mother and alleged father of U.K., III. 1 See
TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 161.001 (West Supp. 2023). Only the mother, Appellant,
filed a notice of appeal. We affirm the trial court’s order of termination.
Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw in this
court. The motion is supported by a brief in which counsel professionally and
conscientiously examines the record and applicable law, and concludes that there are
no arguable issues to present on appeal. Counsel certified to this court that he
provided Appellant with a copy of the brief, a copy of the motion to withdraw, an
explanatory letter, and a copy of the clerk’s record and reporter’s record. Counsel

1
We use initials to refer to the child and the child’s family members. TEX. R. APP. P. 9.8(b).
also advised Appellant of her right to object to his motion to withdraw, and to file a
pro se brief. See TEX. R. APP. P. 6.5. As such, court-appointed counsel has complied
with the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Kelly v. State,
436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406–08
(Tex. Crim. App. 2008); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel
Op.] 1978).
Appellant has not filed a pro se response to counsel’s Anders brief. Following
the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman, we have independently reviewed
the record in this case, and we agree that Appellant’s appeal is frivolous and without
merit.
However, in light of the Texas Supreme Court’s holding in In re P.M., an
Anders motion to withdraw “may be premature” if filed in the court of appeals under
the circumstances presented in this case. See In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 (Tex.
2016) (“[A]n Anders motion to withdraw brought in the court of appeals, in the
absence of additional grounds for withdrawal, may be premature.”). The court in
P.M. held that, in parental termination cases, court-appointed counsel’s duty to his
or her client generally extends “through the exhaustion of [all] appeals.” Id. at 27–
28. In this regard, “appointed counsel’s obligations can be satisfied by filing a
petition for review that satisfies the standards for an Anders brief.” Id.
Accordingly, we deny counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm the trial
court’s order of termination.

W. STACY TROTTER
October 3, 2024 JUSTICE
Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,
Trotter, J., and Williams, J.

2