In the Interest of L.L., a Child, 02-25-00546-CV, March 19, 2026.
On appeal from the 325th District Court of Tarrant County, Texas.
Synopsis
The Second Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court’s decree terminating parental rights following the filing of an Anders brief by appointed counsel. After conducting an independent review of the record and finding no arguable grounds for appeal, the court reiterated that counsel’s statutory duty of representation continues through potential proceedings in the Texas Supreme Court unless relieved for good cause.
Relevance to Family Law
This decision reinforces the procedural finality of parental termination decrees when appellate counsel determines an appeal is frivolous, yet it highlights the heavy and continuing burden placed on appointed counsel. For the family law practitioner, it serves as a reminder that the “Anders” process in termination cases does not end counsel’s obligations at the intermediate court level. Under the mandate of In re P.M. and Texas Family Code § 107.016, the duty to represent the indigent parent persists through the filing of a petition for review in the Texas Supreme Court, regardless of the perceived lack of merit, unless a motion to withdraw for “good cause” is specifically granted.
Case Summary
Fact Summary
This appeal arose from a trial court order terminating a Father’s parental rights to his child, L.L., based on findings under Texas Family Code Section 161.001(b)(1)(E) (endangerment) and a finding that termination was in the child’s best interest under Section 161.001(b)(2). Following the entry of the decree in the 325th District Court, Father’s appointed appellate counsel filed a brief asserting that the appeal was frivolous under the framework established by Anders v. California. Counsel provided Father with the necessary notifications, including his right to review the record and file a pro se response. The Department of Family and Protective Services filed a letter agreeing with counsel’s assessment of the appeal’s frivolity. Father did not file a pro se response.
Issues Decided
- Whether the appellate court must affirm a termination decree when appointed counsel files an Anders brief and the court’s independent review confirms the absence of arguable grounds for appeal.
- Whether appointed counsel’s duties are discharged upon the court of appeals’ finding that an appeal is frivolous.
Rules Applied
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967): Establishes the procedure for counsel to withdraw from a frivolous appeal while ensuring the appellant’s constitutional rights are protected through an independent judicial review of the record.
- In re K.M., 98 S.W.3d 774 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2003, order): Confirms that Anders procedures are applicable in parental-rights termination cases in Texas.
- Texas Family Code § 107.016: Governs the duration of the appointment of an attorney ad litem for a parent, specifying that the appointment continues through all appeals until the court’s obligations are discharged or counsel is relieved for good cause.
- In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24 (Tex. 2016): Clarifies that the statutory right to counsel in termination cases extends through the exhaustion of all appeals, including those to the Texas Supreme Court.
Application
The Second Court of Appeals followed the established two-step inquiry for Anders cases. First, it evaluated counsel’s brief to ensure it met the requisite professional standards, including a thorough evaluation of the record and an explanation as to why no non-frivolous issues existed. Counsel successfully demonstrated compliance by providing the Father with the brief, instructions on how to access the record, and notice of the right to seek further review. Second, the court conducted its own independent audit of the appellate record. The court’s review encompassed the evidentiary support for the predicate findings and the best interest determination. Because this independent review yielded no arguable grounds for reversal, the court concluded the appeal was indeed frivolous. However, the court specifically noted in its footnotes that its affirmance did not end counsel’s role; the statutory obligation to represent the Father remains active through any high court proceedings.
Holding
The court held that the trial court’s judgment terminating the Father’s parent-child relationship must be affirmed because a diligent search of the record revealed no non-frivolous grounds for appeal.
The court further held that appointed counsel remains obligated to represent the Father through any potential proceedings in the Texas Supreme Court. Counsel’s duties are not automatically discharged by the filing of an Anders brief or the issuance of an appellate opinion affirming the termination; rather, counsel must continue to serve until relieved of duties for “good cause” under the standards of the Texas Family Code.
Practical Application
For litigators, this case emphasizes the “sticky” nature of appointed representation in parental termination cases. Trial counsel must be aware that an Anders filing by appellate counsel is not a guarantee of a clean break from the litigation. For appellate practitioners, the takeaway is twofold: (1) strict adherence to the notice requirements of Anders (including providing the draft motion for the record) is a jurisdictional necessity for the brief to be considered; and (2) counsel must be prepared to carry the case to the Texas Supreme Court if the client so requests, even if the court of appeals has already declared the merits to be non-existent.
Checklists
Procedural Compliance for Anders Briefs
- Provide the client with a full copy of the Anders brief.
- Inform the client, in writing, of the right to file a pro se response.
- Advise the client of the right to access the appellate record and provide a draft motion to the appellate court to facilitate that access.
- Include instructions for the client on how to seek further review from the Texas Supreme Court if the appeal is deemed frivolous.
Managing Ongoing Duties Post-Affirmance
- Monitor the deadline for filing a petition for review in the Texas Supreme Court.
- Communicate with the client regarding their desire to pursue a petition for review.
- If continuing representation is impossible due to a conflict or other “good cause,” ensure a formal motion to withdraw is filed that meets the high bar of In re P.M.
- Recognize that “frivolousness” of the appeal does not, in itself, constitute “good cause” for withdrawal under Section 107.016.
Citation
In the Interest of L.L., a Child, No. 02-25-00546-CV, 2026 WL ______ (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Mar. 19, 2026, no pet. h.) (mem. op.).
Full Opinion
~~dc339108-4434-49f6-8d1d-728c4cc91781~~
Share this content: