In the INTEREST OF A.F. and I.F., Children
2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 12659
Tex. App.2015Background
- This is an appeal by E.J.J. from a trial court order terminating his parental rights to two children, A.F. and I.F.
- Court-appointed appellate counsel reviewed the record and concluded the appeal was frivolous, filing an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw.
- Counsel informed E.J.J. of his rights to review the record, file a pro se brief, and seek further review; E.J.J. chose to file a pro se brief after receiving the record (though there was a delay in providing the record).
- The appellate court reviewed counsel’s Anders brief, the record, and E.J.J.’s pro se brief and found no arguable grounds to support the appeal.
- The court determined that further discussion would add nothing to Texas jurisprudence and affirmed the termination order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel complied with Anders requirements and may withdraw | Anders-compliant brief showed no arguable issues; withdrawal appropriate | Counsel met Anders duties; withdrawal proper | Court: Anders procedures satisfied; withdrawal permitted and brief adequate |
| Whether appellant was afforded rights to access record and proceed pro se | E.J.J. asserted he wished to review record and file pro se brief | Record provision was delayed but eventually provided; E.J.J. filed pro se brief | Court: Delay remedied; E.J.J. able to file pro se brief; no reversible error |
| Whether any arguable grounds exist to overturn termination | E.J.J./pro se brief raised unspecified challenges to termination | Counsel and record show no viable legal or factual basis to reverse | Court: No arguable grounds; appeal frivolous; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (appointed counsel may withdraw if brief shows appeal is frivolous and counsel follows procedural requirements)
- In re J.B., 296 S.W.3d 618 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2009) (Anders procedures apply in parental-rights termination appeals)
- In re K.R.C., 346 S.W.3d 618 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2009) (same)
- In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (Texas guidance on contents of Anders-type briefs)
- Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (counsel’s duties to inform appellant of rights on appeal)
- High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978) (procedural authority cited regarding Anders practice)