In the Interest of K.B., a Child v. the State of Texas

IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-24-00201-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF K.B., A CHILD

From the 361st District Court
Brazos County, Texas
Trial Court No. 23-001559-CV-361

MEMORANDUM OPINION

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

terminate Mother and Father’s parental rights to K.B. After a bench trial, the trial court

found that terminating Mother and Father’s parental rights to K.B. was in the child’s best

interest, terminated Mother’s rights under Texas Family Code Sections 161.001(b)(1)(D),

(E), and (Q), and terminated Father’s rights under Sections 161.001(b)(1)(D) and (E). See

TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. §§ 161.001(b)(1)(D), (b)(1)(E), (b)(1)(Q), (b)(2). Mother and Father

appealed.

Counsel for Mother and counsel for Father have each filed Anders briefs asserting

that they diligently reviewed the record and that they believe the respective appeals to

be frivolous. See generally Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); See In re A.S., 653 S.W.3d
298 (Tex. App.—Waco 2022, no pet.). Mother’s counsel additionally filed a motion to

withdraw. We affirm.

The Anders Briefs

The briefs filed by counsel for Mother and counsel for Father meet the

requirements of Anders by presenting professional evaluations demonstrating why there

are no arguable grounds to advance on appeal. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510

n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Each attorney has provided us with the appropriate facts of

the case and its procedural history, and has discussed why, under controlling authority,

there is no reversible error in the trial court’s termination order as to their respective

clients. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 n.9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Further,

counsel for both Mother and Father have informed us that they have examined the record

and found no arguable grounds to advance on appeal, served their client with a copy of

the Anders brief, provided a form motion for pro se access to the appellate record lacking

only the client’s signature and the date, and informed the client of their right to file a

response to the Anders brief. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-

20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re A.S., 653 S.W.3d at 299-300. By letter, we informed Mother

and Father of their right to review the appellate record and to file a response to the Anders

brief filed by their appellate counsel. Mother filed a pro se response. Father did not file a

pro se response.

In the Interest of K.B., a Child Page 2
Upon receiving an Anders brief, we must conduct a full examination of the

proceedings to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.

75, 80 (1988). Arguments are frivolous when they “cannot conceivably persuade the

court.” McCoy v. Court of Appeals, 486 U.S. 429, 436 (1988). We have reviewed the record,

counsels’ briefs, and Mother’s pro se response, and we have found nothing that would

arguably support an appeal for Mother or for Father. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824,

827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (“Due to the nature of Anders briefs, by indicating in the

opinion that it considered the issues raised in the briefs and reviewed the record for

reversible error but found none, the court of appeals met the requirements of Texas Rule

of Appellate Procedure 47.1.”). We affirm the judgment of the trial court terminating

Mother’s and Father’s parental rights to K.B.

Motion to Withdraw of Mother’s Counsel

Counsel for Mother has filed a motion to withdraw as was historically required in

order to comply with the procedures set forth in Anders and its Texas progeny. However,

the Texas Supreme Court has stated that “an Anders motion to withdraw brought in the

court of appeals, in the absence of additional grounds for withdrawal, may be

premature.” See In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 (Tex. 2016). Counsel does not set forth any

“good cause” outside of the filing of the Anders brief in his motion to withdraw.

Consequently, we deny the motion to withdraw. Appointed counsel remains appointed in

In the Interest of K.B., a Child Page 3
this case through any proceedings in the Texas Supreme Court unless otherwise relieved

of these duties. See id. at 27-28.

Conclusion

Having found no meritorious issues presented in this appeal, we affirm the

judgment of the trial court. We deny Mother’s counsel’s motion to withdraw.

In the Interest of K.B., a Child Page 4
STEVE SMITH
Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Johnson, and
Justice Smith
Affirmed; motion denied
Opinion delivered and filed December 19, 2024
[CV06]

In the Interest of K.B., a Child Page 5