R. D. and S. C. v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services
03-16-00454-CV
| Tex. App. | Nov 22, 2016Background
- R.D. and S.C. are parents whose parental rights to three children (K.F.D., K.H.D., K.R.D.) were terminated by a Hays County jury and trial court.
- The jury found clear-and-convincing evidence of statutory grounds for termination under Texas Family Code § 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), (O), and (P), and that termination was in the children’s best interest under § 161.001(b)(2).
- Both parents’ court-appointed appellate attorneys filed Anders-style briefs concluding there are no nonfrivolous appellate issues; neither parent filed a pro se brief.
- The appellate court reviewed the record and counsel’s briefs, agreed the appeal is frivolous, and found two clerical errors in the final decree: the decree mistakenly cited subsection (N) instead of (O) for one ground of termination.
- The court modified the decree to correct the statutory citation, affirmed the modified termination decree, and denied counsel’s motions to withdraw (noting counsel’s obligations on further review proceedings remain).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (DFPS) | Defendant's Argument (R.D./S.C.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether evidence supports statutory grounds for termination (D, E, O, P) | DFPS: Jury findings of parental acts/omissions meet clear-and-convincing standard for listed subsections. | Parents: No nonfrivolous basis to challenge sufficiency of evidence on appeal. | Affirmed: appellate review found no meritorious challenge; grounds stand. |
| 2. Whether termination was in the children’s best interest | DFPS: Evidence supports the jury’s best-interest finding under § 161.001(b)(2). | Parents: No arguable best-interest challenge identified on appeal. | Affirmed: best-interest finding upheld. |
| 3. Whether clerical error in decree (citing § 161.001(b)(1)(N) vs (O)) requires correction | DFPS: Judgment should reflect the jury’s actual findings/subsection (O). | Parents: did not present a contested argument on the citation error on appeal. | Modified: decree reformed to cite § 161.001(b)(1)(O) as the correct ground; remainder affirmed. |
| 4. Whether appellate counsel may withdraw after filing Anders brief | DFPS: Counsel complied with Anders procedure; appeal is frivolous. | Parents: retain right to seek further review; counsel obligations may persist for petition for review. | Denied: motions to withdraw denied; counsel’s obligations regarding further review remain. |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (procedure for counsel to assert an appeal is frivolous while protecting client’s right to file pro se brief)
- High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978) (Texas authority on Anders-like procedure)
- Taylor v. Texas Dep’t of Protective & Regulatory Servs., 160 S.W.3d 641 (Tex. App.—Austin 2005) (applying Anders procedure in parental-termination appeal)