In the Interest of E.J., a Child, 02-25-00617-CV, February 26, 2026.
On appeal from the 233rd District Court, Tarrant County
Synopsis
The Fort Worth Court of Appeals affirmed a decree terminating parental rights following the submission of an Anders brief by appointed counsel. After conducting an independent review of the record and evaluating the appellant’s pro se responses, the court determined that no arguable grounds for reversal existed but denied counsel’s motion to withdraw, citing the ongoing duty of representation through Texas Supreme Court proceedings.
Relevance to Family Law
For the Texas family law practitioner, this memorandum opinion reinforces the procedural finality of “ultra-accelerated” appeals when a record is devoid of reversible error. Perhaps more critically, it serves as a stark reminder of the “P.M. Mandate”: in parental termination cases, the filing of an Anders brief does not automatically relieve appointed counsel of their duties. Counsel’s obligation to the client persists through the exhaustion of proceedings in the Texas Supreme Court, necessitating a higher threshold for withdrawal than the mere absence of meritorious appellate issues.
Case Summary
Fact Summary
The Department of Family and Protective Services sought the termination of Mother’s parental rights regarding her child, E.J. Following a bench trial, the 233rd District Court entered a judgment of termination based on clear and convincing evidence of three conduct-based grounds under Texas Family Code § 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), and (O), and a finding that termination was in the child’s best interest. Mother’s appointed appellate counsel filed an Anders brief, stating that after a professional evaluation of the record, there were no arguable grounds for reversal. Counsel simultaneously filed a motion to withdraw. Mother filed several pro se documents, including a “Motion to Dismiss (or Other Relief) for Violation of Due Process Rights” and a petition for reinstatement of rights. However, these filings failed to identify specific legal or factual errors within the trial court’s order of termination.
Issues Decided
- Whether the appellate record presented any arguable grounds for reversal of the parental termination order after an Anders review.
- Whether appointed counsel’s motion to withdraw should be granted following the determination that the appeal is frivolous.
Rules Applied
- Anders v. California: Established the procedure for appointed counsel to withdraw from a frivolous appeal while protecting the appellant’s due process rights, requiring an independent review by the appellate court.
- Texas Family Code § 161.001(b): The statutory framework for involuntary termination of parental rights, requiring proof of a conduct-based ground and a best-interest finding by clear and convincing evidence.
- In re P.M.: The Texas Supreme Court holding that an appointed attorney’s duty to an indigent parent in a termination case extends through the filing of a petition for review in the Supreme Court, unless “good cause” is shown.
- Texas Rule of Judicial Administration 6.2(a): Mandates the expedited disposition of appeals from judgments terminating parental rights within 180 days of the notice of appeal.
Application
The Second Court of Appeals applied the Anders framework by conducting an exhaustive, independent examination of the appellate record. This review aimed to determine whether Mother’s counsel was correct in asserting that the appeal lacked merit. The court specifically weighed Mother’s pro se responses against the record. Although Mother raised broad due process concerns and requested a reinstatement of rights, she did not articulate how the trial court erred in its findings under subsections (D), (E), or (O), or in its best-interest determination.
The court’s application of the law centered on the sufficiency of the evidence presented at trial. Finding that the Department had met its burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence and that the procedural requirements for an Anders filing were satisfied—including providing Mother with the record and instructions for pro se filing—the court concluded the appeal was frivolous. However, the court applied the In re P.M. standard regarding counsel’s motion to withdraw, noting that the desire to withdraw based on the frivolous nature of the appeal does not constitute “good cause” sufficient to override the statutory right to counsel through the finality of the case.
Holding
The court affirmed the trial court’s order terminating Mother’s parental rights, holding that the independent review of the record confirmed the absence of any arguable grounds for appeal.
The court denied Mother’s counsel’s motion to withdraw, holding that appointed counsel’s obligations continue through any potential proceedings in the Texas Supreme Court unless relieved of those duties for good cause by the high court or the trial court.
Practical Application
This decision highlights the difficulty of challenging a termination decree when the trial record is robust and appointed counsel utilizes the Anders process. For litigators, the case underscores the importance of the trial court’s findings on conduct-based grounds; once established and affirmed via Anders, they are nearly impossible to disturb. Furthermore, appellate practitioners must be prepared for “ultra-accelerated” timelines and should not view a motion to withdraw as a certainty. Even when an appeal is deemed frivolous, you remain the attorney of record for the purposes of a petition for review unless a distinct “good cause” (such as a conflict of interest or illness) is demonstrated.
Checklists
Procedural Requirements for Anders Filings in Termination Cases
- File a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for reversal.
- File a formal motion to withdraw (though it may be denied under In re P.M.).
- Provide the client with a copy of the Anders brief and the motion to withdraw.
- Inform the client, in writing, of their right to review the appellate record.
- Provide the client with a pre-prepared motion for pro se access to the appellate record, including the appellate court’s address.
- Advise the client of their right to file a pro se response and their right to seek discretionary review in the Texas Supreme Court.
Managing the Continuing Duty of Appointed Counsel
- Monitor the deadline for filing a petition for review in the Texas Supreme Court following the appellate court’s affirmation.
- Communicate the appellate court’s decision to the client and explain the limited scope of discretionary review.
- If the client insists on proceeding to the Supreme Court, prepare the petition for review or a motion to withdraw that specifically addresses “good cause” beyond the frivolous nature of the appeal.
- Ensure all trial court and appellate court appointments are documented to verify the duration of the representation duty.
Citation
In the Interest of E.J., a Child, No. 02-25-00617-CV, 2026 WL ______ (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Feb. 26, 2026, no pet. h.) (mem. op.).
Full Opinion
~~a6fb165e-effa-464e-b44e-4cfc99e59f41~~
Share this content: