in the Interest of P.S. and P.S., Children, 07-17-00185-CV

Background

In Jan–Mar 2016 DFPS received reports of neglect/abuse; a March home visit found three adults and three children in a one‑bedroom, 600 sq. ft. apartment without utilities or adequate food; appellant A.S. and the children tested positive for methamphetamine and the children were removed under emergency orders.
The trial court ordered written service plans (signed by A.S.) requiring employment, suitable housing, drug testing, and specific parenting classes; DFPS met with A.S. nearly monthly to monitor and assist, but A.S. failed to comply with most required services.
A.S. continued to use methamphetamine during the case, including about two weeks before the final hearing, lived in a tent city, did not maintain employment, and did not complete required specialized parenting classes.
After a bench trial, the court found clear and convincing evidence of three statutory grounds for termination under Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001(b)(1): subsection (D) (endangering conditions), (E) (conduct/endangerment), and (O) (failure to comply with a court‑ordered plan when children have been in conservatorship at least nine months).
The trial court also found termination was in the children’s best interest and entered an order terminating A.S.’s parental rights; A.S. appealed and appellate counsel filed an Anders brief seeking to withdraw.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether clear and convincing evidence supports statutory grounds for termination under §161.001(b)(1)	DFPS: evidence of unsafe living conditions, drug use, and failure to comply with court‑ordered service plans supports subsections (D), (E), and (O)	A.S.: (as presented by counsel) no non‑frivolous challenge identified in Anders brief; A.S. did not file a pro se response	Court: Reasonable factfinder could form a firm belief as to at least one predicate ground (O), and evidence supports D and E; sufficiency upheld
Whether termination is in the children’s best interest	DFPS: ongoing drug use, lack of housing/employment, and failure to complete services support best‑interest finding	A.S.: no viable appellate challenge presented; factual circumstances argued insufficient to overcome trial finding	Court: Best‑interest finding supported by evidence; termination affirmed
Adequacy of appellate representation under Anders	Appellate counsel certified a conscientious review and compliance with Anders procedures	A.S. received Anders brief and notice of right to file pro se response; none filed	Court: Independent review performed; counsel followed Anders but motion to withdraw denied because counsel must continue representation absent good cause (per In re P.M.)
Standards of review applicable to termination appeals	DFPS: invoke clear and convincing standard and legal/factual sufficiency review rules	A.S.: no contrary legal argument presented	Court: Applied clear and convincing standard; reviewed legal and factual sufficiency and independently reviewed record for non‑frivolous issues

Key Cases Cited

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (procedures when counsel seeks to withdraw on grounds appeal is frivolous)
In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. 2002) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence under "clear and convincing" proof in parental‑termination cases)
In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17 (Tex. 2002) (consideration of acts/omissions proving statutory grounds in best‑interest analysis)
In re A.V., 113 S.W.3d 355 (Tex. 2003) (only one statutory predicate ground required to support termination when best interest is shown)
Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (U.S. 1988) (court's duty to independently review record when appointed counsel seeks to withdraw)
In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (Anders‑type briefing guidance in Texas)
In re D.A.S., 973 S.W.2d 296 (Tex. 1998) (counsel's duties and Anders compliance in appeals)
Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (procedural requirements when counsel files Anders‑type brief)