In the Interest of J.M.V v. a Child v. the State of Texas

Court of Appeals
Tenth Appellate District of Texas

10-25-00479-CV

In the Interest of J.M.V.V., a Child

On appeal from the
474th District Court of McLennan County, Texas
Judge Nikki Mundkowsky, presiding
Trial Court Cause No. 2024-3276-6

JUSTICE SMITH delivered the opinion of the Court.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The trial court terminated Father’s parental rights to J.M.V.V. and

appointed the Department of Family and Protective Services as managing

conservator of the child.1 See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 161.001. Father’s

attorney has now filed an Anders brief asserting that he diligently reviewed

the record and that he believes the appeal is frivolous. See generally Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); In re A.S., 653 S.W.3d 298 (Tex. App.—Waco

2022, no pet.). Father filed a pro se response to counsel’s Anders brief, and the

State filed its response.

1 The trial court also terminated Mother’s parental rights to J.M.V.V., but Mother did not appeal.
Counsel’s brief details the relevant facts of the case and its procedural

history, and demonstrates why, under controlling authority, there exists no

reversible error in the trial court’s termination order. See Stafford v. State,

813 S.W.2d 503, 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We further conclude that

counsel performed the educational duties required of appointed counsel upon

the filing of an Anders brief. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; In re A.S., 653 S.W.3d

at 299-300.

As the reviewing appellate court, it is our duty upon receiving an Anders

brief to independently examine the record to determine whether the appeal is

frivolous. See 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 entire record, counsel’s brief,

Father’s pro se response, and the State’s response, and we have determined

that the appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s order of

termination.

Counsel’s motion to withdraw as Father’s counsel is premature and is

denied. See In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 (Tex. 2016). Accordingly, if Father

desires to file a petition for review, his appellate counsel remains appointed in

this case through any proceedings in the Texas Supreme Court unless

otherwise relieved of his duties. See id.

In the Interest of J.M.V.V., a Child Page 2
STEVE SMITH
Justice

OPINION DELIVERED and FILED: May 7, 2026
Before Chief Justice Johnson,
Justice Smith, and
Justice Harris
Affirmed; Motion denied
Do not publish
CV06

In the Interest of J.M.V.V., a Child Page 3