in the Interest of J.A., a Child
05-16-00825-CV
| Tex. App. | Oct 13, 2016Background
- Father (appellant) had no relationship with his child J.A. and provided no support since J.A. was about 11 months old; at trial J.A. was a teenager and did not want contact.
- Father did not appear at the bench trial; he filed a pro se letter claiming J.A.’s mother prevented a relationship.
- The trial court found abandonment under Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001(b)(1)(C) and terminated Father’s parental rights; Mother voluntarily relinquished hers.
- Record showed Father had a history of homelessness and repeated incarcerations (including a Washington correctional facility) for drug and sexual offenses.
- The termination decree authorized post-termination contact only with J.A.’s consent and therapist approval.
- Father’s court-appointed appellate counsel filed an Anders brief concluding no non-frivolous issues; Father did not file a pro se response.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination for abandonment was supported by the evidence | CPS (appellee) argued Father abandoned J.A. by leaving him without support and no relationship for 6+ months | Father argued (in pro se trial filing) mother prevented relationship; otherwise no preserved appellate error | Court held evidence supported abandonment termination; no reversible error found |
| Whether Anders procedures applied to this appeal | Appellate counsel contended no non-frivolous issues under Anders | Father did not file a pro se response asserting contrary grounds | Court applied Anders review, independently reviewed the record, and found the appeal frivolous |
| Whether appellate counsel may withdraw after filing Anders brief | Counsel sought withdrawal after Anders brief | Court scrutinized request; Father still represented and counsel had not shown good cause | Court denied counsel’s motion to withdraw; counsel’s duties continue absent good cause |
| Whether post-termination contact should be authorized | CPS supported termination but allowed limited post-termination contact if in child’s best interest | Father sought relationship (trial absence limited his argument) | Court affirmed trial court’s limited, conditional post-termination access (child consent and therapist approval) |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (procedure for counsel to move to withdraw when appeal is frivolous)
- In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17 (Tex. 2002) (acts or omissions relevant to both termination grounds and best interest)
- Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (Anders review scope and appellate duties)
- In re D.D., 279 S.W.3d 849 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2009) (applying Anders in parental-termination appeal)