In the Interest of B.C., a Child v. the State of Texas

Court of Appeals
Tenth Appellate District of Texas

10-25-00004-CV

In the Interest of B.C., a Child

On appeal from the
85th District Court of Brazos County, Texas
Associate Judge Andrea James, presiding
Trial Court Cause No. 22-000141-CV-85-A

JUSTICE HARRIS delivered the opinion of the Court.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The father's appointed counsel filed an Anders brief asserting that the

appeal presents no issue of arguable merit. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S.

738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967). The procedures set forth

in Anders v. California are generally applicable to appeals of judgments

that terminate parental rights. In re E.L.Y., 69 S.W.3d 838, 841 (Tex. App.—

Waco 2002, order). Counsel advised the father that counsel had filed the brief

pursuant to Anders and that he had the right to file a pro se response with this

Court. The father was also advised of his right to review the record prior to

filing a response. The father did not file a pro se response with this Court.
Counsel included a recitation of the procedural history and relevant facts

in the Anders brief and asserted that counsel had reviewed the record for any

potentially meritorious issues, including jurisdictional issues, and determined

there are no non-frivolous issues to raise in this appeal. Counsel's brief

discusses the sufficiency of the evidence as to each of the predicate acts upon

which the termination was granted, that being Sections 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E),

and (Q), as well as the best interest of the child and the Department’s

reasonable efforts to return the child. 1 Counsel's brief includes a professional

evaluation of the record, and we conclude that counsel performed the duties

required of appointed counsel. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; see also In re

Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406-408 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).

Upon the filing of an Anders brief, as the reviewing appellate court, it is

our duty to independently examine the record to decide whether counsel is

correct in determining that an appeal is frivolous. See In re G.P., 503 S.W.3d

531, 536 (Tex. App.—Waco 2016, pet. denied). Arguments are frivolous when

they "cannot conceivably persuade the court." McCoy v. Court of Appeals, 486

U.S. 429, 436, 108 S. Ct. 1895, 100 L. Ed. 2d 440 (1988). Having carefully

reviewed the entire record and the Anders brief, including counsel’s request

that the Court modify the judgment, we have determined that the appeal is

1
See TEX. FAM. CODE § 161.001(f).

In the Interest of B.C Page 2
frivolous, and no modification is warranted.

Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's judgment.

If the father desires to file a petition for review, his appellate counsel

remains appointed in this case through any proceedings in the Texas Supreme

Court unless otherwise relieved of these duties. See In the Interest of P.M., 520

S.W.3d 24, 27 (Tex. 2016).

LEE HARRIS
Justice

OPINION DELIVERED and FILED: March 27, 2025
Before Chief Justice Johnson,
Justice Smith, and
Justice Harris
Affirmed
[CV06]

In the Interest of B.C Page 3