In the Interest of E.L. and P.L., Children v. the State of Texas

In the
Court of Appeals
Second Appellate District of Texas
at Fort Worth
___________________________
No. 02-25-00165-CV
___________________________

IN THE INTEREST OF E.L. AND P.L., CHILDREN

On Appeal from the 325th District Court
Tarrant County, Texas
Trial Court No. 325-764877-25

Before Sudderth, C.J.; Birdwell and Walker, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Birdwell
MEMORANDUM OPINION

The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services filed a petition to

terminate Appellant Father’s parental rights to his two children, Emma and Paul.1

After a jury trial, the trial court awarded managing conservatorship of Father’s two

children to Maternal Grandmother and awarded Father possessory conservatorship

with expanded standard possession.2 Father appealed.

Father’s appointed appellate counsel has filed an Anders brief in which he

concludes that, after a thorough review of the appellate record, the appeal is frivolous.

See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967); see In re P.M.,

520 S.W.3d 24, 27 & n.10 (Tex. 2016) (approving Anders procedures in

termination-of-parental-rights appeals); In re K.W., No. 02-23-00082-CV,

2023 WL 4289613, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth June 30, 2023, no pet.) (mem. op.).

Counsel’s brief meets the Anders requirements by presenting a professional

evaluation of the record and showing why there are no arguable grounds to advance

1
We use an alias to identify each child and identify family members by their
relationship to the child. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 109.002(d); Tex. R. App. P.
9.8(b)(2).
2
On February 26, 2025, the trial court severed the suit involving Father and his
two children from a suit encompassing both their case and a case involving a third
child with a different father. See In re Z.D., No. 02-25-00114-CV, 2025 WL 2177389,
at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth July 31, 2025, no pet. h.) (mem. op.). The suit
involving the third child retained the original cause number, 325-741045-23, and the
suit involving Father and his two children was assigned cause number 325-764877-25.
Notwithstanding the severance into cause number 325-764877-25, the trial court’s
April 1, 2025 order disposing of the case involving Father, Emma, and Paul
incorrectly bears the earlier cause number, 325-741045-23.

2
on appeal.3 Further, Father’s attorney (1) provided Father with a copy of the Anders

brief, (2) informed Father of his right to file a pro se response, and (3) advised Father

of his right to access the appellate record from our court and provided him with

instructions and a draft motion for obtaining the record. 4 In re M.H.,

No. 02-24-00487-CV, 2025 WL 937487, at *3 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Mar. 27, 2025,

pet. denied) (mem. op.).

3
The crux of Father’s Anders brief is that Father waived his right to appeal.
Regarding Father’s waiver, the record shows that after the jury verdict on managing
conservatorship, Father and Maternal Grandmother entered into an agreement
regarding Father’s rights of possession, but the trial court conditioned accepting their
agreement on Father’s waiving his right to appeal. Father initially balked because he
wanted to appeal the jury’s verdict on managing conservatorship. The proceedings
recessed so that Father could talk to his trial counsel. When the proceedings resumed,
Father stated his agreement with Maternal Grandmother on the record. The trial
court later stated, “So, [Father], while you are present . . . you have waived your right
to appeal, so you’ve locked in the agreement.” Thereafter, however, Father’s trial
counsel—who is also acting as Father’s appellate counsel—filed a notice of appeal.
We will not speculate on why Father’s counsel filed a notice of appeal after Father
waived his right to appeal. We should not be seen to approve the trial court’s action
in conditioning acceptance of the possessory agreement on Father’s waiving his right
to appeal. The Texas Family Code specifically addresses agreed parenting plans and
how trial courts should handle them. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 153.007.
Conditioning the court’s approval of the agreement on a parent’s waiving his right to
appeal is not identified as one of the options.
4
Counsel misinformed Father on one matter. Counsel advised Father that he
had the right to file a pro se petition for review in the Texas Supreme Court. Father
has the right to file a petition for review, but he does not have to do so pro se.
Counsel’s appointment lasts through proceedings in the Texas Supreme Court unless
otherwise relieved. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 107.016(2)(C); P.M., 520 S.W.3d at 27;
see also In re D.D., No. 02-25-00335-CV, 2025 WL 2177180, at *2–3 (Tex. App.—Fort
Worth July 31, 2025, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.); Z.D., 2025 WL 2177389,
at *7 n.11.

3
We provided Father the opportunity to obtain a copy of the appellate record

and file a pro se response, but he has not done so.5 The Department has agreed with

Father’s counsel that the appeal is frivolous.

When an Anders brief is filed, we must independently examine the appellate

record to determine if any arguable grounds for appeal exist. In re C.J.,

No. 02-18-00219-CV, 2018 WL 4496240, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Sept. 20,

2018, no pet.) (mem. op.). Having carefully reviewed counsel’s brief and the appellate

record, we agree with counsel that Father’s appeal is without merit. See Bledsoe v. State,

178 S.W.3d 824, 827 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); In re D.D., 279 S.W.3d 849, 850

(Tex. App.—Dallas 2009, pet. denied).

The Department has, however, asked that we correct one clerical error in the

order. We agree to do so. See In re C.D.M., No. 05-23-00582-CV, 2023 WL 7144645,

at *13 (Tex. App.—Dallas Oct. 31, 2023, no pet.) (mem. op.) (“When we have the

necessary information to do so, we may correct clerical errors in the judgment.”).

The provision on page 30 of the trial court’s order currently states, “IT IS

ORDERED that [Father] submit to 2 nail bed drug tests each year. One nail bed test

shall be submitted in the month of January, and the second hair follicle test shall be

submitted in the month of July of each year.” [Emphasis added.] We modify the

second sentence of this portion of the order to read, “One nail bed test shall be

5
Had Father filed a response, he might have explained why he filed a notice of
appeal after waiving his right to appeal.

4
submitted in the month of January, and the second nail bed test shall be submitted in

the month of July of each year.”

And as a matter of correcting clerical error, we modify the cause number on the

trial court’s order to 325-764877-25.

As modified, we affirm the trial court’s order.

Father’s appellate counsel remains appointed through proceedings in the Texas

Supreme Court unless otherwise relieved. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 107.016(2)(C);

P.M., 520 S.W.3d at 27; see also D.D., 2025 WL 2177180, at *2–3; Z.D.,

2025 WL 2177389, at *7 n. 11.

/s/ Wade Birdwell

Wade Birdwell
Justice

Delivered: August 21, 2025

5