In the Interest of A.W. and K.W., Children v. the State of Texas

Court of Appeals
Tenth Appellate District of Texas

10-25-00335-CV

In the Interest of A.W. and K.W., Children

On appeal from the
474th District Court of McLennan County, Texas
Judge Nikki Mundkowsky, presiding
Trial Court Cause No. 2024-2144-6

JUSTICE HARRIS delivered the opinion of the Court.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The mother’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). The mother was advised 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 Sections

161.001(b)(1)(D), (N), and (O) 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).

Having carefully reviewed the entire record and the Anders brief, we

have determined that the appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we affirm the trial

In the Interest of A.W. and K.W., Children Page 2
court's judgment.

If the mother desires to file a petition for review, her 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
Chief Justice

OPINION DELIVERED and FILED: December 11, 2025
Before Chief Justice Johnson,
Justice Smith, and
Justice Harris
Motion denied
Affirmed
CV06

In the Interest of A.W. and K.W., Children Page 3