In the Interest of M.D., a Child v. the State of Texas

Opinion filed April 10, 2025

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals
__________

No. 11-24-00296-CV
__________

IN THE INTEREST OF M.D., A CHILD

On Appeal from the 446th District Court
Ector County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. E-23-049-PC

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 father of six-year-old M.D. 1 See
TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 161.001 (West Supp. 2024). Only the mother, Appellant,
filed a notice of appeal. We affirm the trial court’s order of termination.
The evidence presented at the final termination hearing before the trial court
showed that the Department of Family and Protective Services (the Department)
intervened due to the parents’ suspected drug use and ongoing domestic violence.
M.D. was also not enrolled in school because he was not immunized. The

1
We use initials to refer to the child. TEX. R. APP. P. 9.8(b).
Department was granted temporary managing conservatorship of M.D. on
November 1, 2023, and created a family plan of service for Appellant. According to
the Department caseworker, “the only service that [Appellant] did” was “go to
MHMR.” 2 Notably, Appellant never submitted to a single drug test, and violated
visitation rules by hiding a phone in M.D.’s backpack “to track him.”
On September 20, 2024, the father took M.D. from his placement home, and
an AMBER Alert was issued. Police located the child with Appellant the following
day, and both Appellant and the father were charged with kidnapping. See TEX.
PENAL CODE ANN. § 20.03 (West Supp. 2023). The trial court terminated Appellant’s
and the father’s parental rights based on its findings that Appellant and the father
endangered M.D. as set forth in Sections 161.001(b)(1)(D) and (E) and failed to
comply with their court-ordered service plans pursuant to Section 161.001(b)(1)(O).
See FAM. § 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), (N), (O). The trial court further found that
termination was in M.D.’s best interest. FAM. § 161.001(b)(2).
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
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, Schulman, and Kelly. See Kelly v. State, 436
S.W.3d 313, 318–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406–
09 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); see also Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).

2
“MHMR” refers to “state-provided mental health services.” See In re X.M.B.E., 706 S.W.3d 714,
718 n.3 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2025, no pet.).
2
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 held
in P.M. 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. BRUCE WILLIAMS
JUSTICE

April 10, 2025
Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,
Trotter, J., and Williams, J.

3