T. L. H. v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-25-00924-CV

T. L. H., Appellant

v.

Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee

FROM THE 126TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY
NO. D-1-FM-24-003270,
THE HONORABLE AURORA MARTINEZ-JONES, JUDGE PRESIDING

MEMORANDUM OPINION

T.L.H. (Timothy) 1 appeals from the trial court’s order terminating his parental

rights to his children. See Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001. After a bench trial, the court found by

clear and convincing evidence that three statutory grounds existed for terminating Timothy’s

parental rights and that termination was in the children’s best interest. See id.

§ 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), (N), (2).

Timothy’s court-appointed attorney has filed a brief concluding that his appeal is

frivolous and without merit. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967); In re P.M.,

520 S.W.3d 24, 27 & n.10 (Tex. 2016) (per curiam) (approving use of Anders procedure in

appeals from termination of parental rights because it “strikes an important balance between the

1
To protect the children’s privacy, we refer to their family members by aliases. See Tex.
R. App. P. 9.8; Tex. Fam. Code § 109.002(d).
defendant’s constitutional right to counsel on appeal and counsel’s obligation to not prosecute

frivolous appeals” (citations omitted)). The brief meets the requirements of Anders by

presenting a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating why there are no arguable

grounds to be advanced. See 386 U.S. at 744; Taylor v. Texas Dep’t of Protective & Reg. Servs.,

160 S.W.3d 641, 646–47 (Tex. App.—Austin 2005, pet. denied) (applying Anders procedure in

parental-termination case). Timothy’s counsel certified to this Court that he provided Timothy

with a copy of the Anders brief and a copy of the entire appellate record and informed him of his

right to file a pro se brief. To date, Timothy has not filed a pro se brief. The Department of

Family and Protective Services has filed a response to the Anders brief, waiving its right to file

an appellee’s brief unless requested by this Court or as needed to respond to any pro se brief filed

by appellant.

Upon receiving an Anders brief, we must conduct a full examination of the record

to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988);

Taylor, 160 S.W.3d at 647. We have conducted an independent review of the entire record,

including the Anders brief submitted on Timothy’s behalf, and we have found nothing in the

record that might arguably support an appeal. Our review included the trial court’s

endangerment findings against Timothy under subsections (D) and (E), and we have found no

nonfrivolous issues that could be raised on appeal with respect to those findings. See In re N.G.,

577 S.W.3d 230, 237 (Tex. 2019) (per curiam). We agree that Timothy’s appeal is frivolous and

without merit. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s final order terminating Timothy’s

parental rights.2

2
However, the supreme court has held that the right to counsel in suits seeking the
termination of parental rights extends to “all proceedings in th[e supreme court], including the
2
__________________________________________
Maggie Ellis, Justice

Before Justices Triana, Kelly, and Ellis

Affirmed

Filed: March 11, 2026

filing of a petition for review.” In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 (Tex. 2016) (per curiam).
Accordingly, counsel’s obligation to Timothy has not yet been discharged. See id. If, after
consulting with counsel, Timothy desires to file a petition for review, his counsel should timely
file with the supreme court “a petition for review that satisfies the standards for an Anders brief.”
See id. at 27–28.
3