Fort Worth Court Affirms Juvenile Transfer to TDCJ but Strips Court Costs Due to Indigency
In the Matter of A.W., 02-25-00259-CV, February 26, 2026.
On appeal from the 323rd District Court, Tarrant County.
Synopsis
The Second Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s order transferring a juvenile to the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) following an Anders review. However, the Court modified the judgment to vacate $146 in assessed court costs because the appellant’s uncontested affidavit of indigency was conclusive as a matter of law under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 145.
Relevance to Family Law
While this case originates in the juvenile delinquency context, its application of Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 145 and the Campbell v. Wilder precedent is vital for family law practitioners handling SAPCR, termination, or enforcement matters involving indigent parties. The opinion serves as a reminder that an uncontested affidavit of indigency creates a categorical prohibition against the assessment of costs; trial clerks lack the authority to “bill” an indigent party, and appellate courts will readily modify judgments to strip such assessments even when the underlying appeal is otherwise found to be frivolous. In high-conflict custody or divorce litigation, ensuring that the record reflects a party’s indigent status can prevent the improper imposition of clerk and certification fees that often accumulate during the appellate process.
Case Summary
Fact Summary
A.W. was originally sentenced to a twenty-year determinate sentence for murder in November 2023 following a judicial confession. In March 2025, the Texas Juvenile Justice Department (TJJD) requested a transfer hearing, asserting that A.W.’s conduct necessitated a transfer to the TDCJ to serve the remainder of his sentence for the welfare of the community. Following a hearing in May 2025, the trial court granted the transfer.
A.W.’s court-appointed appellate counsel filed an Anders brief, stating that after a diligent review of the record, no non-frivolous grounds for appeal existed. Simultaneously, the clerk’s record reflected two bills of costs totaling $146 for preparation of the record and certification fees. Crucially, the record also contained an uncontested affidavit of indigency filed by A.W.’s mother, and the trial court had previously found A.W. could not afford counsel.
Issues Decided
The Court addressed two primary issues:
- Whether the record presented any arguable grounds for appeal regarding the juvenile’s transfer to the TDCJ under an Anders analysis.
- Whether the trial court clerk properly assessed $146 in court costs against an appellant who had filed an uncontested affidavit of indigency.
Rules Applied
The Court relied on Anders v. California and In re D.A.S. to govern the appellate review of potentially frivolous juvenile proceedings. Regarding court costs, the Court applied Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 145(a), which provides that a party who files an affidavit of inability to pay costs is not required to pay costs except by court order. The Court also cited the Texas Supreme Court’s holding in Campbell v. Wilder, which establishes that an uncontested affidavit of inability to pay is conclusive as a matter of law, meaning there are “no costs to bill.” Furthermore, the Court looked to Texas Family Code § 51.10(f) regarding the appointment of counsel for indigent juveniles.
Application
The Second Court of Appeals conducted an independent review of the record as required by the Anders framework. It concluded that the transfer to the TDCJ was supported by the record and that counsel’s evaluation of the merits was correct—no reversible error existed regarding the transfer itself.
However, the Court identified a legal error in the assessment of court costs. Because A.W.’s mother had filed an affidavit of indigency that remained uncontested, and because the trial court had specifically found A.W. was indigent for the purpose of appointing counsel, the appellant’s status was legally fixed. The Court noted that under Rule 145, the affidavit serves in lieu of paying or giving security for costs. Because there was no evidence that A.W.’s financial status had changed, the clerk’s assessment of fees for record preparation and certification was unauthorized.
Holding
The Court held that the appeal was frivolous as to the merits of the transfer order and affirmed the trial court’s decision to transfer A.W. to the TDCJ.
In a separate holding, the Court modified the judgment to delete the $146 in court costs. The Court held that an indigent party with an uncontested affidavit on file cannot be billed for costs, as the affidavit is conclusive. The Court granted counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirmed the judgment as modified.
Practical Application
For the family law practitioner, this case highlights the necessity of monitoring the clerk’s “Bill of Costs” throughout the lifecycle of an appeal. Even if a party is unsuccessful on the merits, they should not be burdened with administrative costs if their indigent status was established in the trial court. Practitioners should ensure that any affidavit of indigency filed under Rule 145 is properly supported and that no “contest” is filed by the clerk or the opposing party. If a contest is filed, a prompt hearing is required; otherwise, the affidavit becomes conclusive, providing a powerful shield against the assessment of costs in the final appellate judgment.
Checklists
Protecting the Indigent Client from Costs
- Verify the Affidavit: Ensure the Rule 145 affidavit is complete and filed at the earliest possible stage of litigation.
- Monitor for Contests: Track whether the clerk or the opposing party files a motion to contest the affidavit within the timeframe permitted by Rule 145.
- Confirm Indigency Findings: If the court appoints counsel based on indigency (e.g., in a CPS case or juvenile matter), ensure the record explicitly links this finding to Rule 145 status.
- Audit the Final Judgment: Upon receipt of an adverse judgment or an Anders brief, review the clerk’s bill of costs for unauthorized fees.
- Request Modification: If costs are assessed against an indigent party, specifically request that the appellate court modify the judgment to delete those costs pursuant to Campbell v. Wilder.
Responding to an Anders Brief in Juvenile/Family Matters
- Independent Review: Conduct an independent review of the record to ensure counsel did not overlook a “non-frivolous” issue, such as a jurisdictional defect or a statutory notice violation.
- Cost Verification: Even if the merits appear settled, check the supplemental records for any improper assessment of fees that occurred after the initial trial court judgment.
- Pro Se Rights: Ensure the client is fully informed of their right to file a pro se response and their right to seek further review in the Texas Supreme Court.
Citation
In the Matter of A.W., No. 02-25-00259-CV, 2026 WL ______ (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Feb. 26, 2026, no pet.) (mem. op.).
Full Opinion
~~91225f98-960e-4b9f-969f-a90057ca3b41~~
Share this content:
