in the Interest of N v. A v. and S v. Children
02-17-00271-CV
| Tex. App. | Dec 7, 2017Background
- Mother (T.F.) appealed termination of her parental rights to three children (N.V., A.V., S.V.) following a bench trial in Tarrant County.
- The trial court found Mother knowingly placed or allowed the children to remain in endangering conditions and engaged in or placed the children with persons who engaged in endangering conduct, and that termination was in the children’s best interest under Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), (2).
- Appellate counsel filed an Anders brief concluding any appeal would be frivolous; Mother received notice and did not file a response.
- The Department of Family and Protective Services did not file a responsive brief.
- The court performed an independent review required by Anders and concluded the appeal was frivolous and affirmed the termination judgment.
- Counsel’s motion to withdraw was denied because it did not show adequate cause beyond counsel’s view that the appeal was frivolous; the court gave Mother opportunity to request the record and file pro se materials.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of termination grounds under §161.001(b)(1)(D) (conditions/endangerment) | Mother’s conduct did not meet legal standard for endangering conditions | Trial evidence supported findings that Mother knowingly allowed/endangered children | Affirmed: trial court’s endangerment finding upheld |
| Sufficiency of termination grounds under §161.001(b)(1)(E) (placing with persons who endanger) | Mother argued she did not place children with persons who endangered them | Appellate record supported finding that persons around children engaged in endangering conduct | Affirmed: trial court’s placement-with-persons finding upheld |
| Best interest of the children under §161.001(b)(2) | Mother contended termination was not in children’s best interest | Trial court found termination served children’s best interest on record presented | Affirmed: termination found to be in children’s best interest |
| Adequacy of appointed counsel’s Anders brief and counsel’s motion to withdraw | Counsel argued appeal frivolous and sought withdrawal | Court required independent review and found motion lacked sufficient cause to permit withdrawal | Court: Anders brief adequate; independent review found appeal frivolous; counsel’s motion to withdraw denied for lack of shown cause |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (Anders procedure for counsel who believes appeal frivolous)
- In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24 (Tex. 2016) (standards for appointed counsel’s obligations in termination cases and withdrawal)
- In re K.M., 98 S.W.3d 774 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2003) (Anders procedures apply in parental termination appeals)
- In re D.D., 279 S.W.3d 849 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2009) (Anders brief must show professional evaluation and explain lack of arguable grounds)
- Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App.) (reviewing court must independently evaluate frivolousness determination)