Memorandum Opinion by Justice Birdwell, 02-25-00480-CV, January 30, 2026.
On appeal from the 324th District Court of Tarrant County.
Synopsis
The Second Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court’s order terminating parental rights following the submission of an Anders brief by appointed counsel. Upon an independent review of the record, the court determined that no arguable grounds for appeal existed but denied counsel’s motion to withdraw, citing the heightened “good cause” requirement for withdrawal in parental termination proceedings.
Relevance to Family Law
For practitioners handling SAPCR and termination litigation, this case serves as a critical reminder of the divergent standards between general civil appeals and those involving the termination of parental rights. While Anders procedures are available when an appeal is deemed frivolous, the attorney’s obligation to the client does not terminate upon the filing of a frivolousness motion. Under the In re P.M. standard, appointed counsel’s duty persists through the exhaustion of all appeals, including those to the Texas Supreme Court, unless a statutory “good cause” for withdrawal is established independent of the merits of the case.
Case Summary
Fact Summary
The case originated from a termination proceeding in the 324th District Court of Tarrant County. The trial court entered an order terminating the Father’s parental rights to his child, T.F., based on findings under Texas Family Code Section 161.001(b)(1)(D) and (E) (endangerment) and a finding that termination was in the child’s best interest under Section 161.001(b)(2). The court further appointed the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (TDFPS) as the child’s permanent managing conservator. Following the order, the Father’s appointed appellate counsel filed a brief asserting that, after a professional evaluation of the record, she could find no arguable grounds to support an appeal. Counsel provided the Father with the necessary Anders notices, including instructions on how to access the record and his right to file a pro se response. The Father did not file a response, and the TDFPS agreed with counsel’s assessment that the appeal was frivolous.
Issues Decided
The primary issue before the Court of Appeals was whether any arguable grounds for appeal existed to challenge the termination of the Father’s parental rights. Additionally, the court addressed whether appointed counsel’s motion to withdraw should be granted following the determination that the appeal was frivolous.
Rules Applied
The court applied the framework established in Anders v. California, which requires appointed counsel to conduct a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrate why there are no reversible grounds for appeal. In the context of parental termination, the court relied on In re P.M., a seminal Texas Supreme Court decision holding that the right to counsel under Texas Family Code § 107.013(a)(1) extends through the filing of a petition for review in the Supreme Court. Furthermore, the court applied the “good cause” standard for withdrawal, noting that a conclusion that an appeal is frivolous does not, in itself, satisfy the requirements for counsel to be relieved of their duties under Texas Family Code § 107.016(2)(C).
Application
The Second Court of Appeals engaged in an independent review of the appellate record to verify counsel’s assertion that the appeal lacked merit. The court scrutinized the procedural steps taken by counsel—ensuring the Father was provided with the brief, informed of his right to the record, and given the opportunity to file a pro se response—and found them to be in compliance with Kelly v. State. Because the independent review yielded no arguable grounds for relief, the court concluded the appeal was indeed frivolous. However, the legal story shifted regarding counsel’s motion to withdraw. The court noted that in termination cases, the duty of appointed counsel is more robust than in standard civil litigation. Counsel’s motion was denied because she failed to present “good cause” for withdrawal that was distinct from the lack of merit in the appeal.
Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s order terminating the Father’s parental rights and awarding permanent managing conservatorship to TDFPS. The court held that after a thorough review of the record and the Anders brief, there were no non-frivolous issues to be presented on appeal.
The court denied counsel’s motion to withdraw. It held that appointed counsel in a termination case must remain in that role through any proceedings in the Texas Supreme Court unless relieved of her duties for good cause. The court clarified that the mere conclusion that an appeal is frivolous is insufficient to constitute good cause for withdrawal in this specific statutory context.
Practical Application
For the family law litigator, this opinion reinforces the “long-haul” nature of appointed appellate work in termination cases. When representing a parent on appeal, if you determine the case is frivolous, you must still fulfill the rigorous notice requirements of Anders. However, practitioners should be prepared to remain counsel of record through the Supreme Court of Texas petition stage. Strategic withdrawal is only possible if you can demonstrate a conflict of interest, a health issue, or another “good cause” unrelated to the legal weakness of the client’s position.
Checklists
Filing an Anders Brief in Termination Cases
- Professional Evaluation: Conduct a comprehensive review of the entire trial record, including all exhibits and testimony, to ensure no arguable grounds exist.
- Detailed Briefing: The brief must not merely state the appeal is frivolous; it must demonstrate why by referencing the record and applicable law.
- Client Notification: Provide the client with a copy of the Anders brief immediately upon filing.
- Record Access: Inform the client of their right to review the appellate record and provide them with a pre-prepared motion for pro se access to the record.
- Pro Se Rights: Explicitly advise the client of their right to file a pro se response and the deadlines associated with that filing.
Establishing Good Cause for Withdrawal
- Identify Independent Grounds: Ensure the motion to withdraw is based on factors other than the frivolous nature of the appeal (e.g., ethical conflicts or physical inability to continue).
- Statutory Compliance: Reference Texas Family Code § 107.016(2)(C) and explain how the requested withdrawal meets the high bar of “good cause.”
- Avoid Merits-Based Withdrawal: Do not rely on the Anders conclusion as the basis for the motion to withdraw; the Fort Worth court, following In re P.M., will routinely deny such motions.
Citation
In the Interest of T.F., a Child, No. 02-25-00480-CV, 2026 WL ______ (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Jan. 30, 2026, no pet. h.) (mem. op.).
Full Opinion
~~b95e10a4-f294-46b3-9508-93147460cb5b~~
Share this content: