In the Interest of M.R.M., B.E.M., and B.S.M., Children v. the State of Texas

IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-24-00012-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF M.R.M., B.E.M., AND B.S.M., CHILDREN

From the County Court at Law
Hill County, Texas
Trial Court No. CV174-23CCL

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The father and mother of M.R.M., B.E.M., and B.S.M. each filed a notice of appeal

of a judgment terminating their parental rights in this proceeding. See, generally, TEX.

FAM. CODE § 161.001. On February 9, 2024, the father, D.M., filed a motion to dismiss the

appeal stating that the parties had reached an agreement as to the father and that he no

longer desires to continue with the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1). We grant the

motion to dismiss as to the appeal by the father, D.M.

The mother’s appointed counsel has 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 mother that counsel had

filed the brief pursuant to Anders and that she had the right to file a pro se response with

this Court. The mother was also advised of her right to review the record prior to filing

a response. The mother 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,

including Section 161.001(b)(1)(D) and (E), as well as best interest. 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).

In the Interest of M.R.M., B.E.M., and B.S.M., Children Page 2
Having carefully reviewed the entire record and the Anders brief, we have

determined that the appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's

judgment.

CONCLUSION

The appeal filed by the father is dismissed. As to the mother, having found the

appeal is frivolous, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

TOM GRAY
Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Johnson, and
Justice Smith
Dismissed in part; Otherwise affirmed
Opinion delivered and filed June 13, 2024
[CV06]

In the Interest of M.R.M., B.E.M., and B.S.M., Children Page 3