in the Interest of E.J., J.J., V.J., and C.J.., Children
10-16-00417-CV
| Tex. App. | Jul 19, 2017Background
- Trial court terminated Jennifer and Jason J.'s parental rights to four children; appeal taken to the Tenth Court of Appeals.
- Appellate counsel was appointed and filed an Anders brief and motion to withdraw, asserting no non-frivolous issues exist on appeal.
- Counsel informed parents of their right to review the record and to file pro se responses; both parents filed responses challenging the appeal (much of which relied on matters outside the trial record).
- The appellate court independently reviewed the clerk’s and reporter’s records, the Anders brief, the parents’ responses, and the Department’s responses.
- Court concluded the appeal is frivolous and affirmed the trial court’s termination order.
- Court denied counsel’s motion to withdraw because counsel did not show additional "good cause" beyond filing an Anders brief, and thus remains obliged to file a petition for review to the Texas Supreme Court if the parents request it.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether any non-frivolous appellate issues exist challenging termination | Jennifer/Jason argued various defects (many based on matters outside the record) | Counsel argued no arguable issues; termination supported by record | No non-frivolous issues; appeal frivolous; termination affirmed |
| Whether counsel may withdraw after filing an Anders brief | N/A (parents opposed withdrawal implicitly by seeking review) | Counsel sought leave to withdraw based solely on Anders submission | Motion to withdraw denied for lack of additional "good cause" beyond Anders brief |
| Scope of appellate review under Anders in parental-termination appeals | Parents sought broader consideration including matters outside record | Court limited review to record per Anders and Texas precedent | Court reviewed only the trial record and found no meritorious issues |
| Appellate court’s duty when appointed counsel files Anders brief | N/A | Court must independently examine record to determine frivolity | Court performed independent review and concluded appeal is frivolous |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (framework for counsel to concede appeal frivolous and for appellate court review)
- McCoy v. Court of Appeals, 486 U.S. 429 (1988) (defining frivolous appellate argument standard)
- High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978) (counsel duties when seeking withdrawal)
- Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (appellate court’s independent review duty after Anders brief)
- In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (application of Anders procedures in Texas)
- In re E.L.Y., 69 S.W.3d 838 (Tex. App.—Waco 2002) (Anders procedures applicable to parental-termination appeals)
- In re G.P., 535 S.W.3d 531 (Tex. App.—Waco 2016) (affirming requirement of independent appellate review under Anders)
- In re D.D., 279 S.W.3d 849 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2009) (finding appeal frivolous and affirming termination)