in the Interest of G.P., a Child
503 S.W.3d 531
| Tex. App. | 2016Background
- Trial court terminated the parental rights of Stephanie W. and Morris P. to their child G.P.; appeal to the Tenth Court of Appeals.
- Termination was based on multiple statutory predicate grounds under Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001(b)(1); Stephanie challenged four grounds, but did not contest the best-interest finding.
- The Department of Family and Protective Services (the Department) had conservatorship of G.P. for more than six months and created a family service plan for Stephanie aimed at reunification.
- Evidence at trial showed Stephanie failed to complete any service-plan tasks (including drug testing), had minimal contact/visits with G.P., did not provide information about housing/employment, and made no child-support payments.
- The trial court found, by clear and convincing evidence, that Stephanie constructively abandoned G.P. under § 161.001(b)(1)(N); the court also terminated Morris’s parental rights. Morris’s appellate counsel filed an Anders brief asserting no nonfrivolous issues.
- The appellate court affirmed both terminations: it found legally and factually sufficient evidence of constructive abandonment as to Stephanie and, after independent review, agreed the appeal for Morris was frivolous per Anders procedures.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence that Department made reasonable efforts to reunify (element 2 of §161.001(b)(1)(N)) | Stephanie: Dept. did not prove reasonable efforts | Dept.: preparing/administering a service plan and reinstating services satisfied reasonable efforts | Held: Evidence sufficient; service plan and attempts to reinstate services support reasonable efforts (affirmed) |
| Sufficiency of evidence that parent demonstrated inability to provide a safe environment (element 4 of §161.001(b)(1)(N)) | Stephanie: Record does not show inability to provide safe environment | Dept.: failure to complete services, maintain contact, provide living/employment info, do drug tests, or pay support shows inability | Held: Evidence sufficient; trial court could reasonably conclude Stephanie failed to provide safe environment (affirmed) |
| Whether constructive abandonment finding (one ground) supports termination despite other challenged grounds | Stephanie: other grounds lack sufficient evidence (raised but not pressed after N established) | Dept.: only one statutory ground necessary for termination | Held: One valid statutory ground (constructive abandonment) is sufficient to affirm termination; other issues unnecessary to resolve |
| Whether Anders brief procedure and counsel obligations were sufficient for Morris’s appeal | Morris (implicitly): not challenging; counsel filed Anders brief claiming no nonfrivolous issues | Appellate court/counsel: Anders brief filed, client notified, no pro se response; counsel did not file motion to withdraw but court explained that's not required here absent other good cause | Held: Court independently reviewed record, agreed appeal frivolous, affirmed termination; clarified Anders withdrawal motion not required contemporaneously in TFR appeals but counsel’s obligation continues with possibility of petition for review |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (procedure when appointed counsel finds appeal frivolous)
- McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, Dist. I, 486 U.S. 429 (1988) (ethical obligation of counsel to avoid frivolous appeals)
- Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259 (2000) (alternative procedures may satisfy federal constitutional requirements for Anders-like contexts)
- In re K.M.B., 91 S.W.3d 18 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2002) (service-plan administration can satisfy reasonable-efforts element)
- In re D.S.A., 113 S.W.3d 567 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2003) (return to parent need not be physical delivery to satisfy reasonable-efforts element)
- In re J.O.A., 283 S.W.3d 336 (Tex. 2009) (standard for reviewing disputed evidence in termination cases)
- In re M.R.J.M., 280 S.W.3d 494 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2009) (factors indicating a parent’s willingness/ability to provide a safe environment)
- In re A.V., 113 S.W.3d 355 (Tex. 2003) (only one statutory ground under §161.001(b)(1) is necessary to support termination)
- In re Shulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (Anders motion-to-withdraw procedure and counsel obligations explained)