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

Opinion filed May 8, 2026

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals
__________

No. 11-25-00323-CV
__________

IN THE INTEREST OF Z.D., A CHILD

On Appeal from the 326th District Court
Taylor County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 11628-CX

MEMORANDUM OPINION
This is an appeal from a final order in which the trial court terminated the
parental rights of the mother and the alleged fathers of the child, Z.D.1 See TEX.
FAM. CODE ANN. § 161.001 (West Supp. 2025). We affirm.
After a final termination hearing, the trial court found by clear and
convincing evidence that Appellant endangered the child as set forth in
Sections 161.001(b)(1)(D) and (E) and caused the child to be born addicted to a

1
Only the mother appealed. To protect the identity of the child, we refer to him by pseudonyms or
initials. TEX. R. APP. P. 9.8(b).
controlled substance not legally obtained by prescription pursuant to Section
161.001(b)(1)(Q). See id. § 161.001(b)(D), (E), (Q). 2 The trial court further found
that termination of Appellant’s parental rights was in the child’s best interest. Id.
§ 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 has provided Appellant with a copy
of the brief, a copy of the motion to withdraw, an explanatory letter, and a form
motion for pro se access to the appellate record. Counsel also advised Appellant of
her right to object to counsel’s motion to withdraw, and to file a pro se response to
counsel’s Anders 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).
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. With respect to the trial court’s endangerment findings in particular, the
evidence established that Appellant’s pattern of drug abuse, accompanied by related
dangers to the child, presented a substantial risk of harm to the child and rendered

2
We note that the legislature has amended Section 161.001(b)(1), which resulted in the renumbering
of several provisions. See Act of May 16, 2025, 89th Leg. R.S. ch. 211, § 2, 2025 Tex. Sess. Law Serv.
573, 574–75. For instance, and as relevant to the trial court’s findings in this case, former subsection (R)
is now subsection (Q). The amendments only apply to suits affecting the parent-child relationship that are
pending on or after the effective date of the amendments; thus, we apply the law in effect at the time the
suit was pending below. Id. § 3.

2
Appellant incapable of parenting. See In re R.R.A., 687 S.W.3d 269, 278 (Tex.
2024); In re J.O.A., 283 S.W.3d 336, 345 (Tex. 2009); see also In re N.G., 577
S.W.3d 230, 234–35 (Tex. 2019) (addressing due process and due course of law
considerations with respect to appellate review of grounds (D) and (E)).
Although we agree with appellate counsel’s conclusion on the merits, an
Anders motion to withdraw “may be premature” if filed in the court of appeals under
the circumstances that are 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.; see
FAM. § 107.016(2). In this regard, “appointed counsel’s obligations can be satisfied
by filing a petition for review that satisfies the standards for an Anders brief.” P.M.,
520 S.W.3d at 27–28.
Accordingly, we deny counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm the trial
court’s order of termination.

W. BRUCE WILLIAMS
JUSTICE

May 8, 2026
Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,
Trotter, J., and Williams, J.

3