Third Court of Appeals Affirms Parental Termination Order Following Anders Brief and Record Review

T.L.H. v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, 03-25-00924-CV, March 11, 2026.

On appeal from the 126th District Court of Travis County, Texas.

Synopsis

The Third Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court’s order terminating parental rights after appointed counsel filed an Anders brief asserting the appeal was frivolous. Following an independent and comprehensive review of the record—including a mandatory analysis of the endangerment findings under the In re N.G. standard—the court concluded that no arguable grounds for reversal existed.

Relevance to Family Law

For the Texas family law litigator, this case serves as a critical reminder of the procedural safeguards and enduring obligations inherent in court-appointed representation. Even when an appeal is deemed “frivolous” under Anders, the appellate court is constitutionally and statutorily tethered to a rigorous independent review. Most notably, this case reinforces that the In re N.G. requirement—mandating appellate review of endangerment findings under Subsections (D) and (E) due to their collateral consequences in future proceedings—remains a non-waivable hurdle that the court must clear even in the context of an Anders brief. Furthermore, it highlights the “sticky” nature of appointed counsel’s duties, which, pursuant to In re P.M., do not terminate at the Court of Appeals but extend through the exhaustion of all appellate remedies in the Texas Supreme Court.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

Timothy (T.L.H.) appealed from a trial court’s final order terminating his parental rights to his children following a bench trial. The trial court predicated the termination on three specific statutory grounds: Subsections (D) (environment endangerment), (E) (conduct endangerment), and (N) (constructive abandonment), alongside a finding that termination was in the children’s best interest. Timothy’s court-appointed counsel filed an Anders brief, stating that after a professional evaluation of the record, there were no arguable grounds to be advanced on appeal. Counsel certified that the appellant was provided with a copy of the brief and the record, and was notified of his right to file a pro se response; however, no such response was filed.

Issues Decided

• Whether the appeal of the parental termination order was frivolous under the Anders standard.
• Whether the trial court’s endangerment findings under Subsections (D) and (E) were supported by the record upon independent appellate review.
• Whether the court-appointed attorney’s obligations to the appellant were discharged upon the filing of the Anders brief and the appellate court’s affirmance.

Rules Applied

• Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967): Establishes the procedure for appointed counsel to withdraw when an appeal is deemed wholly frivolous, balancing the right to counsel with the ethical obligation not to pursue meritless litigation.
• In re N.G., 577 S.W.3d 230 (Tex. 2019): Requires appellate courts to review the legal and factual sufficiency of endangerment findings under Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001(b)(1)(D) and (E) when challenged, or in an Anders context, to ensure due process due to the impact those findings have on a parent’s rights in future termination proceedings.
• In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24 (Tex. 2016): Holds that the statutory right to counsel in termination cases extends through all proceedings in the Texas Supreme Court, including the filing of a petition for review.
• Texas Family Code § 161.001(b)(1): Provides the statutory grounds for the involuntary termination of parental rights.

Application

The Third Court of Appeals engaged in its mandatory independent review of the entire appellate record to verify counsel’s assessment that the appeal was frivolous. This review was not a mere formality; the court specifically scrutinized the trial court’s findings under Subsections (D) and (E). Under the In re N.G. framework, the court must ensure these specific endangerment findings are supportable because they can serve as a predicate for termination in future suits involving different children.

The court’s narrative analysis confirmed that the evidence presented at the bench trial met the clear and convincing standard required for termination. Because the record yielded no “arguable” points—meaning no points that could potentially lead to a reversal—the court agreed with counsel’s professional evaluation. However, the court also addressed the temporal scope of appointed counsel’s duty. Relying on the Texas Supreme Court’s precedent in In re P.M., the court noted that counsel’s job is not done simply because the appeal is frivolous. If the client wishes to pursue the matter further, counsel must remain on the case to file a petition for review with the Texas Supreme Court that meets the Anders standard.

Holding

The court held that the appeal was frivolous and without merit. Upon its independent review, the court found no nonfrivolous issues that could be raised, specifically regarding the endangerment findings under Subsections (D) and (E).

The court affirmed the trial court’s final order of termination.

The court further held that appointed counsel’s obligation to the appellant remains active. If the appellant desires to file a petition for review, counsel must assist in that filing to satisfy the statutory right to counsel through the finality of the case in the Texas Supreme Court.

Practical Application

• Heightened Endangerment Scrutiny: When representing a parent in a termination case, litigators must realize that (D) and (E) findings are the “death penalty” of parental rights. Even in an Anders situation, these findings will be reviewed. Appellate practitioners should ensure their Anders briefs specifically address why a challenge to these findings would be frivolous to aid the court’s N.G. review.
• The P.M. Obligation: For appointed counsel, the filing of an Anders brief does not equate to a motion to withdraw that will be granted by the Court of Appeals. You are likely tied to the case until the Texas Supreme Court either denies a petition for review or the time for filing such a petition expires.
• Record Integrity: Since the appellate court performs a “full examination of the record,” trial counsel should remain diligent in ensuring that the clear and convincing evidence supporting best interest and statutory grounds is explicitly and cleanly entered into the record to facilitate a smooth affirmance if the case is indeed meritless.

Checklists

Navigating the Anders Process for Appointed Counsel

• Conduct a diligent, line-by-line review of the entire trial record.
• Prepare a brief that presents a professional evaluation of the record, specifically explaining why there are no arguable grounds for reversal.
• Include a specific section addressing the legal and factual sufficiency of the Subsections (D) and (E) endangerment findings (In re N.G. compliance).
• Provide the appellant with a copy of the Anders brief and the complete appellate record.
• Inform the appellant, in writing, of their right to file a pro se brief and the timeline for doing so.
• Certify to the Court of Appeals that the above notice and documentation have been provided.

Managing Post-Affirmance Duties

• Review the Court of Appeals’ opinion with the client.
• Determine if the client wishes to file a petition for review with the Texas Supreme Court.
• If the client desires further appeal, timely file a petition for review that satisfies Anders standards.
• Do not move to withdraw in the Court of Appeals; understand that withdrawal is generally handled by the Texas Supreme Court in these circumstances.

Citation

T.L.H. v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, No. 03-25-00924-CV (Tex. App.—Austin Mar. 11, 2026, no pet. h.).

Full Opinion

Full Opinion Link

~~d99cc4cc-3c51-4118-8788-ce73709f1bd0~~