in the Interest of P. W., a Child
12-15-00179-CV
| Tex. App. | Dec 16, 2015Background
- K.W. is the biological father of P.W. (born July 10, 2009). The Department of Family and Protective Services (the Department) removed the child and was appointed temporary, then permanent, managing conservator.
- The Department filed for termination of parental rights against K.W. and the mother, J.G., alleging changed circumstances and requesting termination as in the child’s best interest.
- At trial the court found by clear and convincing evidence that both parents committed acts or omissions under Texas Family Code § 161.001(1)(N) and (O) sufficient to terminate parental rights.
- The trial court additionally found termination was in P.W.’s best interest and entered a final order terminating the parent–child relationship with K.W.
- K.W.’s appointed appellate counsel filed an Anders brief concluding the appeal was frivolous and moved to withdraw; K.W. did not file a pro se brief.
- The Court of Appeals independently reviewed the record, agreed the appeal was frivolous, granted counsel’s motion to withdraw, and affirmed the trial court judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of appellate issues (Anders compliance) | Anders brief shows no reversible error; counsel asks to withdraw | K.W. did not present a pro se response after being informed of right to do so | Court: Anders procedures properly applied; counsel may withdraw and appeal is frivolous |
| Evidence supporting statutory grounds for termination (Tex. Fam. Code §161.001(1)(N), (O)) | Department: clear and convincing evidence parents engaged in conduct warranting termination | K.W.: no arguable grounds in record to overturn findings | Court: Trial court’s findings under (N) and (O) stand; no reversible error found |
| Best interest of the child | Department: termination is in child’s best interest | K.W.: no arguable challenge presented | Court: Best-interest finding supported; affirmed |
| Disposition — final judgment/affirmance | Department seeks termination and affirmance | K.W.: no viable appellate challenge; counsel withdrew | Court: Affirmed the trial court judgment; certified decision to trial court |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (requires counsel to file brief identifying potential appellate issues and permits withdrawal when appeal is frivolous)
- Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969) (Texas precedent regarding counsel withdrawal procedures)
- In re K.S.M., 61 S.W.3d 632 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2001) (Anders procedures apply in parental-rights termination cases when Department seeks termination)
- Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (reviewing court must independently evaluate record when counsel seeks to withdraw)
- Mays v. State, 904 S.W.2d 920 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1995) (discusses appellate duties under Anders)
- Taylor v. Tex. Dep’t of Protective & Regulatory Servs., 160 S.W.3d 641 (Tex. App.—Austin 2005) (addresses appellate review of termination cases)