In the Interest of J. W., Jr. and J. W., Children v. the State of Texas

NO. 12-23-00052-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

IN THE INTEREST OF J. W., JR. AND § APPEAL FROM THE COUNTY
J. W., CHILDREN
§ COURT AT LAW

§ ANDERSON COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM

T.A. appeals the termination of her parental rights. T.A.’s counsel filed a brief in
compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967)
and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). We affirm.

BACKGROUND

T.A. is the mother of J.W., Jr. and J.W. On February 24, 2021, the Department of Family
and Protective Services (the Department) filed an original petition for protection of a child, for
conservatorship, and for termination of the parental rights of T.A. The Department was
appointed temporary managing conservator of the children, and T.A. was allowed limited access
to, and possession of, the children.
The evidence at trial showed that T.A. used marijuana during her pregnancy with J.W.,
Jr. Both T.A. and one-year-old J.W. tested positive for marijuana during the pendency of the
case, and T.A. tested positive for alcohol at least twice. T.A. failed to maintain stable housing,
and her apartment lacked electricity for a few months. T.A. failed to maintain employment and to
provide verification that she had done so. In addition, T.A. did not provide diapers for the
children, failed to refrain from consuming alcohol, and did not participate in all required
services. The evidence also showed that the children were exposed to family violence. Moreover,
the children are doing well with their foster family, and their foster parents want to adopt them.
At the conclusion of the trial, the trial court found, by clear and convincing evidence, that
T.A. knowingly placed or allowed the children to remain in conditions that endangered their
physical or emotional wellbeing, knowingly engaged in conduct that endangered the children’s
physical or emotional wellbeing, and failed to comply with the provisions of a court order that
specifically established the actions necessary for her to obtain the return of the children. See TEX.
FAM. CODE ANN. § 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), (O) (West 2022). The trial court also found, by clear
and convincing evidence, that termination is in the best interest of the children. Based on these
findings, the trial court ordered that the parent-child relationship between T.A. and the children
be terminated. This appeal followed.

ANALYSIS PURSUANT TO ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA

T.A.’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders, stating that he diligently reviewed
the appellate record and is of the opinion that the record reflects no reversible error and that there
is no error upon which an appeal can be predicated. This Court has previously held that Anders
procedures apply in parental rights termination cases when the Department has moved for
termination. See In re K.S.M., 61 S.W.3d 632, 634 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2001, no pet.). In
compliance with Anders, counsel’s brief presents a professional evaluation of the record
demonstrating why there are no reversible grounds on appeal and referencing any grounds that
might arguably support the appeal. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; Mays v. State,
904 S.W.2d 920, 922-23 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1995, no pet.).
As a reviewing court, we must conduct an independent evaluation of the record to
determine whether counsel is correct in concluding that the appeal is frivolous. See Stafford v.
State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Mays, 904 S.W.2d at 923. We have
carefully reviewed the appellate record and counsel’s brief. We find nothing in the record that
might arguably support the appeal.1 See Taylor v. Tex. Dep’t of Protective & Regulatory Servs.,
160 S.W.3d 641, 646-47 (Tex. App.—Austin 2005, pet. denied).

1
Counsel for T.A. certified that he provided T.A. with a copy of the brief and informed her that she had the
right to file her own brief and took concrete measures to facilitate her review of the record. See Kelly v. State, 436
S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In the Matter of C.F., No. 03-18-00008-CV, 2018 WL 2750007, at *1

2
DISPOSITION

We agree with T.A.’s counsel that the appeal is wholly frivolous.2 Accordingly, we
affirm the trial court’s judgment. See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2.

Opinion delivered June 30, 2023.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

(Tex. App.—Austin June 8, 2018, no pet.) (mem. op.). T.A. was given the time to file her own brief, but the time for
filing such a brief has expired, and we have not received a pro se brief.
2
After filing an Anders brief, T.A.’s attorney filed a motion to withdraw. However, counsel’s obligations
to T.A. have not yet been discharged. See In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 (Tex. 2016) (holding that the right to
counsel in suits seeking termination of parental rights extends “to all proceedings in [the Texas Supreme Court],
including the filing of a petition for review.”). If T.A., after consulting with counsel, desires to file a petition for
review, counsel should timely file with the Texas Supreme Court “a petition for review that satisfies the standards
for an Anders brief.” Id. at 27-28; see A.C. v. Tex. Dep’t of Family & Protective Servs., No. 03-16-00543-CV, 2016
WL 5874880, at *1 n.2 (Tex. App.—Austin Oct. 5, 2016, no pet.) (mem. op.).

3
COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

JUNE 30, 2023

NO. 12-23-00052-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF J. W., JR. AND J. W., CHILDREN

Appeal from the County Court at Law
of Anderson County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. CCL-21-17147)

THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and brief filed herein,
and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that there was no error in the
judgment.
It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the judgment of
the court below be in all things affirmed, and that the decision be certified to the court below
for observance.

By per curiam opinion.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and J., Neeley