Anders Review Affirms Parental Termination | In re T.L.F. (2026)

In the Interest of T.L.F., 09-26-00102-CV, July 23, 2026.

On appeal from 279th District Court, Jefferson County, Texas

Synopsis

The Beaumont Court of Appeals held that, after conducting its own independent Anders review, it could affirm a parental-rights termination order where the record revealed no arguable ground for reversal. The court also reaffirmed that appointed counsel in termination appeals generally may not withdraw merely by filing an Anders brief; absent additional good cause, counsel remains obligated through the completion or waiver of further appellate proceedings under Texas Family Code §§ 107.013 and 107.016 and In re P.M.

Relevance to Family Law

Although T.L.F. arises from a termination proceeding rather than a divorce or SAPCR modification, its procedural lessons matter across Texas family-law practice. For trial lawyers, the case underscores how decisively the appellate record controls outcomes in high-stakes parent-child litigation, particularly where endangerment findings under Family Code § 161.001(b)(1)(D) and (E) are involved. For appellate counsel, it is a pointed reminder that appointed representation in indigent parent cases carries a longer tail than in many other civil matters, which affects post-judgment strategy, notice to the client, petition-for-review planning, and the management of expectations in custody-related cases that may evolve into termination or quasi-termination disputes.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

Mother appealed an order terminating her parental rights to her child, identified by pseudonym as Tina. The trial court terminated under Texas Family Code § 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), and (L), and also found that termination was in the child’s best interest under § 161.001(b)(2). The opinion does not recite the underlying evidentiary details at length, which is typical in a memorandum disposition of an Anders appeal, but it confirms that the trial court had made the required predicate-ground and best-interest findings by clear and convincing evidence.

On appeal, Mother’s appointed counsel filed an Anders brief representing that no meritorious appellate issues could be identified. Counsel discussed the record, the governing standards, the sufficiency of the evidence, and why no arguable ground for reversal existed. Counsel also moved to withdraw. The court notified Mother of her right to file a pro se response, but she filed none.

The appellate court then independently reviewed the entire record rather than relying solely on counsel’s assessment. After doing so, it agreed that the appeal presented no arguable ground for reversal. Even so, the court denied counsel’s motion to withdraw because this was a parental-termination appeal and the motion did not establish additional good cause for withdrawal under the governing statutes and In re P.M.

Issues Decided

• Whether the appeal from the parental-rights termination order presented any nonfrivolous issue requiring full merits briefing under Anders v. California.
• Whether the court of appeals, after its own review of the record, should affirm the termination order when no arguable appellate issue appears.
• Whether appointed counsel in a parental-termination appeal may withdraw based solely on the filing of an Anders brief and motion to withdraw.
• Whether Texas Family Code §§ 107.013(a)(1) and 107.016(2)(B), as construed in In re P.M., require appointed counsel to continue representation through further appellate proceedings absent additional good cause.

Rules Applied

The court applied the familiar Anders framework, under which appointed counsel who concludes an appeal is frivolous must file a brief professionally evaluating the record and identifying why no arguable issue exists, while the reviewing court must itself examine the entire proceeding and decide independently whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. The opinion cites Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and recognizes that Anders procedures apply in parental-termination appeals through cases such as In re L.D.T., 161 S.W.3d 728 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2005, no pet.).

The court also relied on the statutory framework governing appointed counsel for indigent parents in termination cases:

• Tex. Fam. Code § 107.013(a)(1), requiring appointment of counsel for an indigent parent who responds in opposition to termination.
• Tex. Fam. Code § 107.016(2)(B), defining the duration of appointed counsel’s representation.
• Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), and (L), identifying predicate grounds for termination.
• Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001(b)(2), requiring proof that termination is in the child’s best interest.

Finally, the court applied In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27–28 (Tex. 2016), which holds that in parental-termination appeals, an Anders motion to withdraw filed in the court of appeals may be premature absent additional grounds for withdrawal. Under P.M., appointed counsel’s obligations continue until appeals are exhausted or waived, or the court relieves counsel for good cause shown on the record. The opinion also notes P.M.’s instruction that counsel may satisfy continuing obligations in the Supreme Court of Texas by filing a petition for review that meets Anders standards.

Application

The Beaumont court followed the standard Anders sequence carefully. It first evaluated whether appellate counsel’s brief adequately performed the gatekeeping function expected in a no-merit appeal. The opinion indicates that counsel summarized the trial evidence, discussed the governing legal standards, addressed the trial court’s ruling, and explained why the termination judgment was supported by sufficient evidence. That mattered because a conclusory no-merit filing would not have justified the court’s next step.

The court then gave Mother the procedural protection that Anders requires by notifying her of the right to file a pro se response. After no response was filed, the court independently reviewed the entire appellate record. Only after conducting that review did it conclude there were no arguable grounds for appeal, no reversible error, and no need to appoint new counsel for re-briefing. In other words, the affirmance rested on the court’s own examination of the proceedings, not merely on counsel’s assertion that the appeal lacked merit.

But the court separated that merits determination from the withdrawal question. Even though it agreed the appeal was frivolous, it denied counsel’s motion to withdraw because counsel had not shown the “additional grounds” or “good cause” required in this category of case. That distinction is critical. In parental-termination appeals, the conclusion that no nonfrivolous issue exists does not itself terminate counsel’s appointment. The statutory duty of appointed counsel continues through the exhaustion or waiver of further review unless and until the court relieves counsel on a proper showing.

Holding

The court held that affirmance was proper because, after an independent review under Anders, the record disclosed no arguable ground for reversal of the order terminating Mother’s parental rights. The court therefore affirmed the trial court’s termination order.

The court separately held that appointed counsel’s motion to withdraw should be denied. Relying on Texas Family Code §§ 107.013(a)(1) and 107.016(2)(B), together with In re P.M., the court concluded that in a parental-termination appeal, counsel remains obligated to represent the indigent parent through the completion or waiver of further appellate proceedings unless the court finds additional good cause to permit withdrawal.

Practical Application

For appellate practitioners handling parental-rights cases, T.L.F. is less about substantive termination doctrine than about appellate mechanics and professional obligations. The opinion confirms that courts of appeals remain willing to dispose of termination appeals through the Anders process when the record genuinely presents no arguable issue, but they will still insist on a disciplined review process. A barebones brief is risky; counsel should expect the court to scrutinize whether the brief meaningfully addresses the record, the predicate grounds, the best-interest finding, preservation issues, and any procedural irregularities.

For trial lawyers, the case is a reminder that many appellate outcomes in termination matters are effectively determined by record quality. If the evidence supporting (D), (E), or other predicate grounds is thoroughly developed, the best-interest evidence is tied to the statutory framework, and objections or constitutional complaints are either preserved or clearly unavailable, the odds of generating an arguable appellate issue narrow considerably. That lesson extends beyond termination practice. In contested custody modifications, relocation disputes, family-violence protective-order litigation, and even property issues tied to due-process complaints, the same principle applies: a carefully built record can make an appeal difficult to brief on the merits.

For lawyers representing indigent parents on appeal, T.L.F. reinforces the post-P.M. reality that an Anders affirmance does not end the representation automatically. Counsel should plan from the outset for the possibility of continued obligations through a petition for review. That means documenting client communications, advising the client about deadlines and options after the court of appeals’ judgment, and being prepared either to file a petition for review that satisfies Anders standards or to establish actual good cause for withdrawal beyond the mere absence of arguable issues.

For practitioners on the appellee side—typically the Department or a child’s representative—the case is useful authority when responding to procedural motions in termination appeals. If appellant’s counsel seeks withdrawal without the showing required by P.M., T.L.F. provides another example of a court denying that request even while affirming on the merits.

Checklists

Preserving a Termination Record for Appeal

• Obtain explicit findings on each predicate ground submitted and on best interest.
• Ensure the evidentiary record supports each pleaded ground independently.
• Develop testimony and exhibits that address both endangerment and best-interest factors.
• Make a clean record on objections, rulings, offers of proof, and any constitutional complaints.
• Confirm that service, notice, appointment, and indigency issues are documented in the clerk’s record.
• Request clarification or additional findings where the order or oral rulings are ambiguous.

Preparing an Anders Brief in a Termination Appeal

• Review the entire clerk’s and reporter’s record, not just the final hearing.
• Address the sufficiency of the evidence for each termination ground actually found.
• Analyze the best-interest evidence separately rather than treating it as implied.
• Consider preservation, evidentiary, charge, due-process, notice, and appointment issues even if none ultimately have merit.
• Include a professional evaluation explaining why each potential issue is frivolous.
• Certify service of the brief on the client and advise the client of the right to review the record and file a pro se response.
• Confirm compliance with local and statewide appellate requirements governing Anders filings.

Managing Post-Opinion Duties for Appointed Counsel

• Do not assume affirmance automatically ends the appointment.
• Review Tex. Fam. Code §§ 107.013 and 107.016 immediately after the opinion issues.
• Advise the client in writing about the court’s decision, deadlines, and options for further review.
• Calendar the petition-for-review deadline and any motion-for-rehearing deadlines.
• If seeking withdrawal, identify and document actual good cause beyond the filing of an Anders brief.
• Be prepared to file a petition for review that satisfies Anders standards if the client seeks further review.
• Maintain a record of all client communications regarding waiver or pursuit of further appellate remedies.

Opposing an Inadequate Motion to Withdraw

• Cite In re P.M. for the proposition that an Anders withdrawal motion may be premature.
• Point to Tex. Fam. Code § 107.016(2)(B) as the source of continuing representation duties.
• Emphasize the absence of any record-based finding of good cause.
• Distinguish the merits question from the withdrawal question.
• Ask the court to deny withdrawal even if it affirms the judgment.

Avoiding the Appellant’s Downside

• Scrutinize the record early for any arguable issue before the Anders route is chosen.
• Preserve every plausible trial complaint through timely objection and ruling.
• Challenge defective findings, inadequate notice, or evidentiary gaps before judgment becomes final.
• Make sure the client understands that silence after an Anders filing may leave the court with only counsel’s presentation and its own record review.
• If a pro se response may help focus the court on a potential issue, advise the client of that opportunity promptly and clearly.

Citation

In the Interest of T.L.F., No. 09-26-00102-CV, 2026 Tex. App. LEXIS ___ (Tex. App.—Beaumont July 23, 2026, no pet. h.) (mem. op.).

Full Opinion

Read the full opinion here

~~c70a9e8b-0f49-44a8-83ba-1ae4458f88c0~~