in the Interest of K.X., a Child
07-21-00069-CV
| Tex. App. | Jul 14, 2021Background
- Biological father C.X. appealed the termination of his parental rights to child K.X.; appointed appellate counsel filed an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw, notifying C.X. of his right to file a pro se response.
- C.X. filed a pro se response asserting poor communication with counsel, alleging ineffective assistance, noting his incarceration, and stating he would complete services if given another chance.
- The court conducted the required Anders review and an independent sufficiency review under In re N.G.
- Trial evidence showed a roughly ten-year history of drug abuse and criminal conduct by C.X., periods of incarceration during the mother’s pregnancy and much of the Department’s involvement, failure to complete court-ordered services, and instability in employment and housing.
- The trial court terminated parental rights based on Texas Family Code § 161.001(b)(1)(E), (O), and (P), and found termination was in the child’s best interest; the appellate court affirmed, concluding no arguable appellate issues existed.
- The court denied C.X.’s request for new appellate counsel and noted counsel’s continuing duty through exhaustion (e.g., petition for review); the motion to withdraw remains pending.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (C.X.) | Defendant's Argument (State/DFPS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of Anders procedure and counsel communication | Counsel was ineffective and failed to communicate; requests new appellate counsel | Counsel complied with Anders, served record and notice; no meritorious issues found | Anders procedure satisfied; request for new counsel denied |
| Sufficiency of evidence for §161.001(b)(1)(E) (endangerment by conduct) | C.X. argues he could remedy conduct if given another chance | Evidence of chronic drug use, criminality, incarceration, failure on services, instability supports endangerment | Evidence legally and factually sufficient to support termination under (E) |
| Sufficiency for §161.001(b)(1)(O) and (P) | Implicit claim: termination not warranted; would comply with services | Trial evidence supports statutory grounds relied on by court | No arguable error found; grounds support termination |
| Best-interest finding | C.X. contends he would work services to be fit parent | Child’s stability and safety favored over father’s uncertain rehabilitation | Termination found to be in child’s best interest; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (establishes procedure when appointed counsel finds appeal frivolous)
- In re D.D., 279 S.W.3d 849 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2009) (discusses appellate obligation to search record for arguable issues)
- Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (addresses counsel’s duties regarding claims of meritless appeals)
- In re N.G., 577 S.W.3d 230 (Tex. 2019) (requires appellate courts to independently review evidence supporting termination under certain grounds)
- In re L.G., 596 S.W.3d 778 (Tex. 2020) (clarifies scope of appellate analysis required after In re N.G.)
- In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24 (Tex. 2016) (counsel has continuing duty through exhaustion, including potential petition for review)