Juvenile Commitment Affirmed; Counsel’s Motion to Withdraw Denied Under Texas Family Code § 51.101(a)

In the Matter of S.W., a Juvenile, 10-25-00168-CV, February 05, 2026.

On appeal from the 474th District Court of McLennan County

Synopsis

The Tenth Court of Appeals affirmed a juvenile commitment order following an Anders review but denied appointed counsel’s motion to withdraw. The court determined that because counsel was appointed at the initial detention stage, Texas Family Code § 51.101(a) mandates continued representation until the case is “terminated,” which includes the exhaustion of all appeals through the Texas Supreme Court.

Relevance to Family Law

While this decision arises from a Title 3 juvenile delinquency proceeding, its implications are vital for any practitioner handling state-appointed representation under the Texas Family Code. The court’s reliance on the “continuing duty” doctrine established in parental rights termination cases (In re P.M.) signals a unified appellate approach to the scope of appointed representation. For family litigators, this reinforces that a “frivolous” appellate assessment via Anders does not automatically terminate the attorney’s statutory obligation to the client. The case highlights a critical trap: the specific stage of the case at which you are appointed—whether at a detention hearing or a modification hearing—dictates whether you are entitled to withdraw in the intermediate court or whether you are tethered to the case until the Texas Supreme Court denies a petition for review.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

The juvenile, S.W., appealed an order committing her to the Texas Juvenile Justice Department (TJJD) for an indeterminate period. The record reflects that the trial court appointed counsel for S.W. on December 9, 2024, prior to an initial detention hearing held on December 20, 2024. Following the commitment order, appointed counsel filed an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw, asserting that the appeal lacked arguable merit. Counsel complied with the procedural requirements of Anders by notifying the juvenile and her parents of their right to review the record and file a pro se response. No such response was filed.

Issues Decided

The primary issue was whether appointed counsel in a juvenile appeal may withdraw upon the filing of an Anders brief when the appointment was made at the initial detention stage under Texas Family Code § 51.101(a).

Rules Applied

The court analyzed the interplay between the Anders procedure and the Texas Juvenile Justice Code. Specifically, it looked to Texas Family Code § 51.101(a) and § 54.01(b-1), which provide that if an attorney is appointed at the initial detention hearing and the child is detained, the attorney “shall continue to represent the child until the case is terminated.” The court also drew a parallel to Texas Family Code § 107.016(2) and the Texas Supreme Court’s holding in In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24 (Tex. 2016), which defined the “exhaustion of appeals” to include proceedings in the Supreme Court. The court further distinguished its prior holding in In re J.L.C., 582 S.W.3d 442 (Tex. App.—Waco 2018, no pet.), which applied to modification hearings under § 51.101(e).

Application

The court’s analysis turned on a granular reading of the Family Code’s appointment provisions. In previous cases involving the modification of a prior disposition, the court had allowed withdrawal because the relevant statute (§ 51.101(e)) only required representation until the trial court “rules on the motion.” However, S.W.’s case was different. Because her counsel was appointed at the initial detention stage, the more stringent requirements of Section 51.101(a) applied.

The court reasoned that the phrase “until the case is terminated” in the juvenile context mirrors the “exhaustion of appeals” language found in parental termination statutes. Consequently, the court adopted the logic of In re P.M., holding that the statutory obligation to represent a child from the detention stage onward does not end simply because the intermediate appellate court finds the appeal frivolous. Instead, “termination” of the case occurs only after the right to pursue a petition for review in the Texas Supreme Court has been satisfied or waived.

Holding

The court affirmed the trial court’s order of commitment, agreeing with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presented no arguable grounds for reversal.

Regarding the motion to withdraw, the court denied the motion. The court held that pursuant to Texas Family Code § 51.101(a), appointed counsel’s duty to represent the juvenile continues through the filing of a petition for review in the Texas Supreme Court, regardless of the filing of an Anders brief.

Practical Application

This opinion is a stark reminder that in Texas, “appointed for the appeal” often means “appointed through the Supreme Court.” If you are appointed to represent a juvenile at the outset of a case, you should prepare for the possibility that an Anders filing will not relieve you of your duties. You must be prepared to either file a petition for review that satisfies the “low-bar” requirements of In re P.M. or remain counsel of record until the Texas Supreme Court acts. Litigators should carefully check the specific subsection of Family Code § 51.101 under which they were appointed to determine their exit strategy.

Checklists

Determining Your Withdrawal Eligibility

• Identify the Appointment Stage:
  • Were you appointed specifically for an initial detention hearing under § 54.01?
  • Were you appointed for a modification of disposition under § 54.05?
• Review the Governing Statute:
  • If appointed at detention, § 51.101(a) applies (the “until terminated” standard).
  • If appointed for modification, § 51.101(e) applies (the “until the court rules” standard).
• Evaluate the “Termination” Status:
  • Confirm whether a petition for review has been filed or the time for filing has expired.
  • Assess whether “good cause” exists for withdrawal independent of the frivolous nature of the appeal.

Fulfilling Post-Anders Duties

• Notification Requirements:
  • Advise the client and guardians of the Anders filing.
  • Provide the client with a copy of the motion for access to the appellate record.
• Supreme Court Preparation:
  • Inform the client of their right to ask you to file a petition for review with the Texas Supreme Court.
  • If the client requests a petition, ensure it meets the minimal standards required to satisfy the statutory duty of representation.

Citation

In the Matter of S.W., a Juvenile, No. 10-25-00168-CV, 2026 WL ______ (Tex. App.—Waco Feb. 5, 2026, no pet. h.) (mem. op.).

Full Opinion

View Full Opinion Here

~~9cbae592-e6f2-4627-a5bf-32ad4301e46c~~