Waco Court Affirms Termination After Anders Review and Denies Premature Motion to Withdraw

In the Interest of J.M.V.V., a Child, 10-25-00479-CV, May 07, 2026.

On appeal from 474th District Court of McLennan County, Texas

Synopsis

The Waco Court of Appeals independently reviewed the entire record after appointed counsel filed an Anders brief in a parental-rights termination appeal and concluded there was no non-frivolous ground for reversal. The court affirmed the termination order and denied counsel’s motion to withdraw as premature, reiterating that appointed counsel remains obligated through potential proceedings in the Texas Supreme Court unless formally relieved.

Relevance to Family Law

Although this is a termination case rather than a divorce or SAPCR modification dispute, its procedural significance extends across Texas family-law appellate practice. For family-law litigators handling custody, conservatorship, possession, support, enforcement, and termination matters, the opinion is a useful reminder that appellate courts will strictly enforce Anders procedures in appointed-representation cases and that counsel’s post-opinion obligations do not end with an affirmance. Strategically, the case underscores two recurring realities in family litigation: first, preservation and record development at the trial level remain outcome-determinative on appeal; and second, in indigent-parent cases, appellate counsel must treat Supreme Court-stage duties as part of the appointment unless and until relieved under controlling authority.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

The trial court terminated the father’s parental rights to J.M.V.V. under Family Code section 161.001 and appointed the Department of Family and Protective Services as managing conservator. The mother’s rights were also terminated, but she did not appeal. On appeal, the father’s appointed attorney filed an Anders brief, representing that he had diligently reviewed the record and concluded the appeal presented no arguable, non-frivolous issue.

The opinion reflects that counsel did more than simply announce that conclusion. The brief summarized the relevant facts and procedural history and explained why no reversible error appeared under governing law. The father then filed a pro se response, and the State filed its own response. That procedural posture mattered because, once an Anders brief is filed in a parental-termination appeal, the court of appeals must conduct its own independent review of the full record rather than merely accepting counsel’s assessment.

The court’s analysis is concise, but the important factual feature is procedural rather than merits-based: the appellate record, counsel’s submission, the father’s pro se response, and the State’s response gave the court a complete basis to decide whether any arguable issue existed. After that review, the court concluded the appeal was frivolous.

Issues Decided

• Whether the father’s appeal from the termination order presented any non-frivolous appellate issue after counsel filed an Anders brief.
• Whether appointed appellate counsel had satisfied the duties imposed when filing an Anders brief in a parental-rights termination appeal.
• Whether counsel’s motion to withdraw should be granted after the court affirmed the termination order.

Rules Applied

The court relied on the standard Anders framework as adapted to Texas parental-rights appeals, along with the continuing-duty rule for appointed counsel in such cases.

Key authorities included:

• Texas Family Code section 161.001, the statutory basis for termination of parental rights.
• Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), requiring counsel who concludes an appeal is frivolous to file a brief identifying anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal and to fulfill specified duties to the client.
• In re A.S., 653 S.W.3d 298 (Tex. App.—Waco 2022, no pet.), addressing Anders procedures in parental-rights cases and counsel’s educational duties to the client.
• Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991), recognizing that an Anders brief should discuss the record and applicable law sufficiently to show why no reversible error exists.
• Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), confirming the appellate court’s duty to independently examine the record once an Anders brief is filed.
• McCoy v. Court of Appeals, 486 U.S. 429, 436 (1988), describing frivolous arguments as those that cannot conceivably persuade the court.
• In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 (Tex. 2016), holding that appointed counsel in parental-rights termination cases ordinarily remains obligated through proceedings in the Texas Supreme Court unless relieved.

Application

The Waco court approached the case in the now-familiar two-step manner required in Anders termination appeals. First, it evaluated whether counsel’s brief was facially adequate. The court expressly noted that counsel had detailed the relevant facts and procedural history and had demonstrated, under controlling authority, why no reversible error existed. Just as importantly, the court found that counsel had performed the educational duties required upon filing an Anders brief, signaling compliance with the obligation to inform the client about the brief, the right to review the record, and the ability to file a pro se response.

Second, the court turned to its own independent examination of the entire appellate record. It did not limit itself to counsel’s conclusions. Instead, it reviewed the record, the Anders brief, the father’s pro se response, and the State’s response to determine whether any arguable basis for reversal could be identified. After conducting that review, the court concluded that any potential appellate arguments were frivolous, meaning they could not conceivably persuade the court under the governing authorities.

The withdrawal issue was handled separately but is likely the more practically important point for practitioners. Even after affirming the termination order, the court denied counsel’s motion to withdraw as premature. Relying on In re P.M., the court reiterated that appointed counsel remains in the case through any petition-for-review stage in the Texas Supreme Court unless and until relieved. In other words, affirmance in the court of appeals does not itself terminate counsel’s appointment.

Holding

The court held that the father’s appeal was frivolous after an independent review of the entire record. Because no non-frivolous appellate issue existed, the court affirmed the trial court’s order terminating the father’s parental rights and appointing the Department as managing conservator.

The court also held that appointed counsel’s motion to withdraw was premature. Counsel remained appointed through any potential proceedings in the Texas Supreme Court unless otherwise relieved of duty, so the motion to withdraw was denied despite the affirmance.

Practical Application

For lawyers handling CPS and termination appeals, this case is a clean reminder that an Anders filing is not a perfunctory exit ramp. The brief must still educate the court, identify the procedural history and material facts, and demonstrate why no arguable issue exists under controlling law. If the brief is thin, conclusory, or fails to show a real review of the record, the court may reject it or require further work.

For trial lawyers, the opinion reinforces a more fundamental appellate lesson: when the appellate court’s independent review finds nothing arguable, that usually reflects not merely the strength of the judgment but the absence of preserved, developed, and record-supported appellate complaints. In termination and SAPCR litigation alike, complaints about evidentiary rulings, service plans, best-interest proof, statutory predicates, conservatorship findings, or due-process concerns must be preserved with precision at the trial level.

For appointed appellate counsel, the opinion carries a compliance warning. After filing an Anders brief and receiving an affirmance, counsel should not assume that representation has ended. Under In re P.M., counsel remains responsible through the petition-for-review phase unless the Supreme Court or another proper court relieves counsel. That affects calendaring, client communication, and file-closing procedures.

For broader family-law practice outside CPS litigation, the case also has indirect value. It highlights the judiciary’s expectation that family-law appeals be responsibly screened and professionally presented. Even in ordinary divorce or custody appeals where Anders does not apply, appellate courts expect disciplined issue selection, a developed record, and candid treatment of weak points. The same strategic principle applies: preserve the right issues, build the right record, and know that appellate obligations often continue longer than clients assume.

Checklists

Anders Brief Compliance in Termination Appeals

• Confirm that appointed status is clear in the appellate record.
• Conduct and document a full review of the clerk’s record and reporter’s record.
• Identify the governing termination grounds, best-interest findings, and conservatorship rulings at issue.
• Summarize the relevant facts and procedural history with record citations.
• Discuss potential issues sufficiently to show why no reversible error exists under controlling law.
• Serve the client with the Anders brief and motion, if any, in compliance with applicable procedures.
• Inform the client of the right to review the record and file a pro se response.
• Provide the client with concrete instructions and deadlines for any pro se response.
• Ensure the brief reflects the educational duties recognized in Texas Anders jurisprudence.

Preserving Appellate Issues in Family Trial Practice

• Make timely, specific objections tied to the actual legal complaint.
• Obtain express rulings or object to refusals to rule.
• Preserve legal- and factual-sufficiency complaints where required by rule.
• Request findings, additional findings, or clarifications when strategically useful.
• Create a clean record on evidentiary exclusions through offers of proof.
• Preserve due-process complaints, including notice and opportunity-to-be-heard issues.
• Verify that exhibits are admitted and actually included in the appellate record.
• Monitor whether all hearings critical to the ruling are reported by a court reporter.

Post-Opinion Duties for Appointed Counsel

• Do not assume affirmance ends the appointment.
• Calendar deadlines for rehearing and petition for review immediately upon opinion issuance.
• Advise the client in writing about the disposition and remaining appellate options.
• Evaluate whether a petition for review is warranted under the applicable standards.
• Continue representation through Supreme Court proceedings unless formally relieved.
• Avoid closing the file until withdrawal is authorized or representation otherwise terminates by rule or order.
• Keep proof of all client communications regarding appellate rights and deadlines.

Trial-Level Steps to Avoid a “No Arguable Issue” Appeal

• Develop a record on statutory predicates and best-interest factors rather than assuming cross-examination alone is enough.
• Challenge evidentiary gaps in real time and with specificity.
• Present competing conservatorship and placement evidence where appropriate.
• Preserve constitutional complaints explicitly rather than by implication.
• Request relief that gives the appellate court a concrete ruling to review.
• Consider post-judgment motions if they would sharpen or preserve appellate complaints.
• Coordinate trial and appellate strategy early in high-risk termination cases.

Citation

In the Interest of J.M.V.V., a Child, No. 10-25-00479-CV, 2026 WL ___ (Tex. App.—Waco May 7, 2026, no pet.) (mem. op.).

Full Opinion

Read the full opinion here

~~f0f471ec-bba3-4bdc-b729-b4d03943959b~~