In the Interest of I.R.C. and J.L.C., Children v. the State of Texas

Court of Appeals
Tenth Appellate District of Texas

10-25-00180-CV

In the Interest of I.R.C. and J.L.C., Children

On appeal from the
272nd District Court of Brazos County, Texas
Judge Andrea L. James, presiding
Trial Court Cause No. 24-001234-CV-272

JUSTICE SMITH delivered the opinion of the Court.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The trial court terminated Father’s parental rights to I.R.C. and J.L.C.

pursuant to Subsections 161.001(b)(1)(D) and 161.001(b)(1)(E) of the Family

Code, and found that termination was in the best interest of each child. See

TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. §§ 161.001(b)(1)(D), (b)(1)(E), (b)(2).1 Father’s attorney

has now filed an Anders brief asserting that he diligently reviewed the record

and that he believes the appeal to be frivolous. See generally Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967); In re A.S., 653

S.W.3d 298 (Tex. App.—Waco 2022, no pet.). Father did not file a pro se

response to counsel’s Anders brief.

1 The trial court also terminated Mother’s parental rights to the children. Mother did not appeal.
Counsel’s brief details the relevant facts of the case and its procedural

history, and presents a professional evaluation demonstrating why, under

controlling authority, there is no reversible error in the trial court’s

termination order. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim.

App. 1991). Counsel also served Father with a copy of the Anders brief,

informed Father of his right to review the appellate record and file a pro se

response, provided Father with a form motion for pro se access to the appellate

record, and notified Father of his right to request counsel to file a petition for

review on his behalf with the Texas Supreme Court. See Anders, 386 U.S. at

744; In re A.S., 653 S.W.3d at 299-300. 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, 406-08 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).

As the reviewing appellate court, it is our duty upon receiving an Anders

brief to independently examine the record to determine whether the appeal is

frivolous. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988). Arguments are frivolous

when they “cannot conceivably persuade the court.” McCoy v. Court of Appeals,

486 U.S. 429, 436 (1988). We have reviewed the entire record and counsel’s

brief, and we have determined that the appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we

affirm the judgment of the trial court.

In the Interest of I.R.C. and J.L.C., Children Page 2
Counsel’s motion to withdraw as Father's counsel is premature and is

denied. See In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 (Tex. 2016). Accordingly, if 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 id.

Conclusion

Having found that Father’s appeal is frivolous, we affirm the judgment

of the trial court. We deny Father’s counsel’s motion to withdraw.

STEVE SMITH
Justice

OPINION DELIVERED and FILED: September 18, 2025
Before Chief Justice Johnson,
Justice Smith, and
Justice Harris
Affirmed; Motion denied
CV06

In the Interest of I.R.C. and J.L.C., Children Page 3