In the Interest of M. R., J. B., and J. B., Children v. the State of Texas

NO. 12-23-00170-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

§ APPEAL FROM THE 420TH
IN THE INTEREST OF
§ JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
M. R., J. B., AND J. B., CHILDREN
§ NACOGDOCHES COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM
J.B., Sr. and D.B. appeal the termination of their parental rights. Appellants’ counsel filed
a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493
(1967) and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). We affirm.

BACKGROUND

D.B. is the mother of M.R., J.B., Jr. and J.B. J.B., Sr. is the father of J.B., Jr. and J.B.
M.R.’s father is unknown. 1 On August 18, 2022, the Department of Family and Protective
Services (the Department) filed an original petition for protection of a child, for conservatorship,
and for termination of the parental rights of J.B., Sr. and D.B. The Department was appointed
temporary managing conservator of the children, and Appellants were allowed limited access to,
and possession of, the children.
The evidence at trial showed that the children were unkempt, dirty, and roaming around
the apartment complex that they had lived in and their housing situation was deplorable. The two
younger children’s teeth were broken and decaying, and after coming into the Department’s care,
they required dental work to be able “to eat without [an] issue.” The children were not attending

1
The trial court’s order also terminated the parental rights of M.R.’s unknown father, who is not a party to
this appeal.

1
school. In addition, the evidence showed that D.B. called 911 and falsely reported that the children
had been raped and drugged, and she became irate with hospital staff and expressed the belief that
hospital staff members were her neighbors in disguise. J.B., Sr. was not living with the children
when they came into care because he was living in a homeless shelter. The evidence also showed
that despite his belief that D.B. suffers from mental health issues, J.B., Sr. nevertheless left the
children in her care.
The children’s caseworker testified that she believes Appellants are currently in Colorado.
The caseworker explained that D.B. posted on Facebook that she is homeless and living on the
streets, yet the service plan required Appellants to provide a home with water, lights, and sewer
service. Appellants were unable to demonstrate any legal income during the pendency of the case
and had no plans for how they would support the children. Appellants failed to attend parenting
classes and testing as required by their service plan. When the caseworker took Appellants for a
mental health assessment, J.B., Sr. became upset, and both J.B., Sr. and D.B. refused to complete
the paperwork or participate in the assessment. Additionally, the evidence showed that both parents
failed to regularly visit the children.
The evidence also showed that both Appellants admitted to smoking marijuana, D.B. tested
positive for methamphetamine on at least one occasion, and Appellants did not submit to regular
drug testing as required by their service plan. Appellants screamed at the caseworker and
threatened her, and she was unable to transport them or go to their home without law enforcement
accompanying her. The evidence further showed that the caseworker was eventually forced to
stop visiting Appellants, even with law enforcement, “because they continued to escalate in their
behaviors[.]” Appellants failed to have a psychosocial examination or participate in individual
counseling, as required by their service plan. The evidence showed that all three children are doing
well with their foster family, they attend school and participate in extracurricular activities, and
they are active in church. The children’s foster parents wish to adopt them, so the children will
remain together.
At the conclusion of the trial, the trial court found, by clear and convincing evidence, that
Appellants knowingly placed or allowed the children to remain in conditions that endangered their
physical or emotional wellbeing, knowingly engaged in conduct that endangered the children’s
physical or emotional wellbeing, constructively abandoned the children, and failed to comply with
the provisions of a court order that specifically established the actions necessary for them to obtain

2
the return of the children. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), (N), (O) (West
2022). The trial court also found, by clear and convincing evidence, that termination is in the best
interest of the children. Based on these findings, the trial court ordered that the parent-child
relationship between Appellants and the children be terminated. This appeal followed.

ANALYSIS PURSUANT TO ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA
Appellants’ counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders, stating that he diligently
reviewed the appellate record and is of the opinion that the record reflects no reversible error and
that there is no error upon which an appeal can be predicated. This Court has previously held that
Anders procedures apply in parental rights termination cases when the Department has moved for
termination. See In re K.S.M., 61 S.W.3d 632, 634 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2001, no pet.). In
compliance with Anders, counsel’s brief presents a professional evaluation of the record
demonstrating why there are no reversible grounds on appeal and referencing any grounds that
might arguably support the appeal. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; Mays v. State,
904 S.W.2d 920, 922-23 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1995, no pet.).
As a reviewing court, we must conduct an independent evaluation of the record to
determine whether counsel is correct in concluding that the appeal is frivolous. See Stafford v.
State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Mays, 904 S.W.2d at 923. We have carefully
reviewed the appellate record and counsel’s brief. We find nothing in the record that might
arguably support the appeal. 2 See Taylor v. Tex. Dep’t of Protective & Regulatory Servs., 160
S.W.3d 641, 646-47 (Tex. App.—Austin 2005, pet. denied).

2
Appellants’ counsel certified that he provided Appellants with a copy of the brief, informed them that they
had the right to file their own brief, and took concrete measures to facilitate their review of the record. See Kelly v.
State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In the Matter of C.F., No. 03-18-00008-CV, 2018 WL 2750007,
at *1 (Tex. App.—Austin June 8, 2018, no pet.) (mem. op.). Appellants were given the time to file their own brief,
but the time for filing such a brief has expired, and we have not received a pro se brief.

3
DISPOSITION
We agree with Appellants’ counsel that the appeal is wholly frivolous. 3 Accordingly, we
affirm the trial court’s judgment. See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2.

Opinion delivered September 20, 2023.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

3
After filing an Anders brief, Appellants’ attorney filed a motion to withdraw. However, counsel’s
obligations to Appellants have not yet been discharged. See In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 (Tex. 2016) (holding that
the right to counsel in suits seeking termination of parental rights extends to “all proceedings in [the Texas Supreme
Court], including the filing of a petition for review.”). If Appellants, after consulting with counsel, desire to file a
petition for review, counsel should timely file with the Texas Supreme Court “a petition for review that satisfies the
standards for an Anders brief.” Id. at 27-28; see A.C. v. Tex. Dep’t of Family & Protective Servs., No. 03-16-00543-
CV, 2016 WL 5874880, at *1 n.2 (Tex. App.—Austin Oct. 5, 2016, no pet.) (mem. op.).

4
COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

SEPTEMBER 20, 2023

NO. 12-23-00170-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF M. R., J. B., AND J. B., CHILDREN

Appeal from the 420th District Court
of Nacogdoches County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. C2237885)

THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and brief filed herein,
and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that there was no error in the judgment.
It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the judgment of
the court below be in all things affirmed, and that the decision be certified to the court below for
observance.

By per curiam opinion.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.