in the Interest of C.J., H.T., and B.T., Children
2016 Tex. App. LEXIS 9480
| Tex. App. | 2016Background
- Trial court terminated S.J.’s parental rights to C.J., H.T., and B.T., and terminated B.P.T.’s rights to H.T. and B.T.; jury found clear and convincing evidence under Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), (O) and that termination was in the children’s best interest under § 161.001(b)(2).
- Appellants S.J. and B.P.T. were represented by court‑appointed counsel on appeal, who filed Anders briefs and motions to withdraw, concluding the appeals were frivolous after record review.
- Neither appellant filed a response to the Anders briefs when given the opportunity.
- The court of appeals independently reviewed the record and the Anders briefs and agreed the appeals were frivolous, affirming the trial court’s termination judgment.
- The court nonetheless denied counsel’s motions to withdraw, citing In re P.M. and holding the motions did not show sufficient "good cause" beyond counsel’s assertion that the appeals were frivolous.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for statutory termination grounds | The Department/jury argued clear and convincing evidence supported (D), (E), and (O) grounds | S.J. and B.P.T. implicitly contested sufficiency via appeal; counsel argued no non‑frivolous grounds | Court found record supports jury’s findings; upheld termination on those grounds |
| Best‑interest finding | State/jury argued termination was in children’s best interest | Appellants challenged the finding on appeal; counsel found no arguable basis | Court affirmed that clear and convincing evidence supported best‑interest determination |
| Adequacy of Anders briefs | Appellate counsel argued Anders briefs professionally evaluated the record and showed no arguable issues | Appellants did not file responses to challenge adequacy | Court agreed briefs met Anders requirements and independently found the appeals frivolous |
| Motions to withdraw by appointed counsel | Counsel sought leave to withdraw based on Anders conclusion of frivolous appeal | Appellants had a right to continued representation absent good cause to allow withdrawal | Court denied motions to withdraw because they showed no good cause beyond counsel’s assertion; directed adherence to In re P.M. guidance |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (establishes procedure for appointed counsel to seek withdrawal when appeal is frivolous)
- Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (appellate courts must independently review record when counsel files Anders brief)
- In re K.M., 98 S.W.3d 774 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2003) (Anders procedures apply in parental‑termination appeals)
- In re K.R.C., 346 S.W.3d 618 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2009) (appellate review of Anders briefs in child‑welfare context)
- In re D.D., 279 S.W.3d 849 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2009) (finding nothing in record to arguably support appeal after Anders review)