Fourth Court of Appeals Affirms Termination of Parental Rights Following Anders Brief Submission

Memorandum Opinion by Justice McCray, 04-25-00369-CV, January 28, 2026.

On appeal from the 166th Judicial District Court, Bexar County.

Synopsis

The Fourth Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s order terminating parental rights after court-appointed appellate counsel filed an Anders brief. The court’s independent review confirmed that the record contained clear and convincing evidence to support the statutory termination grounds and the finding that termination was in the children’s best interest.

Relevance to Family Law

For the family law practitioner, this memorandum opinion reinforces the procedural finality and the high evidentiary burden of parental termination cases involving court-appointed counsel. Specifically, it underscores the efficacy of the Anders procedure in the context of Texas Family Code § 161.001(b) when a record is legally and factually sufficient to withstand even an independent appellate review. It serves as a reminder that when the trial record is properly developed regarding endangerment and failure to comply with a service plan, the likelihood of a successful appeal—even one constitutionally mandated—is significantly diminished.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

This appeal arises from a termination of parental rights proceeding involving six minor children. The Department of Family and Protective Services became involved with the family at a time when eight children were in the home, though two reached majority during the pendency of the litigation. Following a de novo hearing, the trial court found by clear and convincing evidence that Father’s parental rights should be terminated based on three statutory predicates: conduct endangering the children’s physical or emotional well-being (Subsection E), placing or allowing the children to remain in conditions endangering their well-being (Subsection D), and failure to comply with the provisions of a court order specifically establishing the actions necessary for the parent to obtain the return of the children (Subsection O). Additionally, the trial court found that termination was in the children’s best interest. Father timely appealed the order.

Issues Decided

The primary issue was whether the appellate court should affirm the termination order when court-appointed counsel concludes the appeal is frivolous under Anders v. California. Subsumed within this is whether the record establishes by clear and convincing evidence at least one statutory ground for termination and that termination is in the children’s best interest.

Rules Applied

The court applied Texas Family Code § 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), and (O) regarding the statutory grounds for termination, and § 161.001(b)(2) regarding the best interest of the children. Procedurally, the court followed Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24 (Tex. 2016), which adapt the Anders criminal appellate framework to parental termination cases. These rules require appointed counsel to conduct a professional evaluation of the record and, if no arguable grounds for reversal exist, to provide the appellant with notice and the opportunity to file a pro se brief.

Application

The court examined the procedural steps taken by Father’s court-appointed counsel, noting that the brief filed met the professional standards required for an Anders submission. Counsel certified that she provided the Father with the necessary documentation to review the record and file a pro se response, though Father ultimately declined to do so. Moving to the substantive merits, the court conducted an independent “thorough review” of the appellate record. The court focused on the “clear and convincing” evidence standard—a heightened burden of proof necessitated by the constitutional magnitude of parental rights. The court found that the evidence regarding Father’s conduct and the environmental conditions of the children satisfied the requirements of the Family Code.

Holding

The court affirmed the trial court’s judgment terminating Father’s parental rights. The court held that appellate counsel had fulfilled her professional obligations and that the record supported the conclusion that there were no plausible justifications for reversal.

The court further held that the evidence was legally and factually sufficient under the clear and convincing standard to support the findings under Texas Family Code §§ 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), and (O), as well as the best-interest finding under § 161.001(b)(2).

Practical Application

This case highlights the importance of trial counsel’s role in “insulating” a termination order. Because the Fourth Court of Appeals performed an independent review of the record despite the Anders brief, the strength of the Department’s case at the trial level was the deciding factor. Litigators should ensure that even in cases where an appeal seems unlikely to succeed, the record contains specific, clear, and convincing evidence for each statutory ground, particularly Subsection (E), which can have collateral consequences in future termination proceedings.

Checklists

Determining Anders Compliance

• Verify that counsel’s brief contains a professional evaluation of the record with citations.
• Ensure counsel certified that they provided the client with a copy of the brief.
• Check that counsel informed the client of the right to review the record and provided a motion for access.
• Confirm that the court provided the appellant an opportunity to file a pro se brief.

Developing the Termination Record

• Document specific instances of environmental endangerment (Subsection D) to provide a factual basis for the trial court’s findings.
• Establish a clear timeline of the parent’s conduct and omissions to satisfy the “course of conduct” requirement for Subsection E.
• Ensure the service plan (Subsection O) is specific, court-ordered, and that the record reflects the parent’s non-compliance with particularity.
• Explicitly address the Holley factors to support the best-interest finding.

Citation

In the Interest of E.R.H., et al., No. 04-25-00369-CV (Tex. App.—San Antonio Jan. 28, 2026, no pet. h.) (mem. op.).

Full Opinion

View the full opinion here.

~~f9d9178b-a62f-44a5-8bd8-2b66d48e6b48~~