In the Interest of J.M., a Child, 12-25-00292-CV, March 11, 2026.
On appeal from the 321st Judicial District Court, Smith County, Texas.
Synopsis
The Twelfth Court of Appeals affirmed a SAPCR order appointing a parent as a possessory conservator, finding the appeal frivolous under Anders v. California following the execution of a statutory Mediated Settlement Agreement (MSA). While the court accepted counsel’s professional evaluation that no reversible error existed, it denied the motion to withdraw, clarifying that appellate counsel’s appointment in government-initiated parent-child relationship suits continues through the exhaustion of proceedings in the Texas Supreme Court.
Relevance to Family Law
This opinion underscores the near-absolute finality of Mediated Settlement Agreements that comply with Texas Family Code § 153.0071, even within the high-stakes context of litigation involving the Department of Family and Protective Services. For the practitioner, the case serves as a critical reminder of the “point of no return” once an MSA is executed and proved up. Furthermore, it reinforces the significant procedural burdens placed on appointed appellate counsel; under the In re P.M. doctrine, an Anders filing does not terminate the attorney-client relationship at the intermediate appellate level, necessitating continued representation through the petition for review stage.
Case Summary
Fact Summary
The litigation originated when the Department of Family and Protective Services filed a petition for the protection of J.M., seeking conservatorship and the termination of Mother’s (L.B.) parental rights. The Department’s intervention was prompted by reports of Mother’s intoxication, an arrest for assault/family violence, and admitted use of cocaine and Xanax. Following the child’s emergency removal and the entry of temporary orders, the parties attended mediation and successfully executed a Mediated Settlement Agreement (MSA) on July 21, 2025.
Under the terms of the MSA, Mother’s parental rights were not terminated; instead, she was appointed as a possessory conservator while a relative was named permanent managing conservator. At the subsequent hearing, Mother testified that she signed the MSA voluntarily, understood its binding nature, and recognized that it preserved her parental rights. The trial court found the MSA satisfied the statutory requirements of the Family Code and was in the child’s best interest, subsequently signing a final order consistent with the agreement. Mother thereafter sought to appeal the order.
Issues Decided
- Whether an appeal of a SAPCR order is frivolous when the underlying judgment is based on a voluntary, statutory Mediated Settlement Agreement.
- Whether appointed counsel in a SAPCR case involving the Department may withdraw from representation upon the filing of an Anders brief.
Rules Applied
- Texas Family Code § 153.0071(d): Provides that a mediated settlement agreement is binding on the parties if it contains a prominently displayed statement that the agreement is not subject to revocation and is signed by each party and their attorney.
- In re Lee, 411 S.W.3d 445 (Tex. 2013): Establishes that a trial court is generally required to enter judgment on a statutory MSA, which is not subject to judicial modification.
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967): Sets forth the procedural requirements for counsel to withdraw from a frivolous appeal, requiring a professional evaluation of the record.
- In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24 (Tex. 2016): Holds that the statutory right to counsel for indigent parents in termination/conservatorship suits extends to all proceedings in the Texas Supreme Court, including the filing of a petition for review.
Application
The Twelfth Court of Appeals conducted an independent evaluation of the record to determine if any arguable grounds for appeal existed. The court focused on the validity of the MSA, noting that it complied with the specific requirements of the Texas Family Code. Because Mother testified to her voluntary participation and the record contained no evidence of fraud, coercion, or a lack of capacity, the court determined that the trial court was bound by the agreement.
The court further observed that the MSA was a strategic success for the parent, as it preserved her parental rights in the face of a termination petition. Consequently, the appellate court agreed with counsel’s assessment that any challenge to the conservatorship order was legally frivolous. However, applying the Texas Supreme Court’s mandate in In re P.M., the court noted that counsel’s obligations are not discharged by the mere filing of an Anders brief. Because the underlying suit involved the Department’s request for termination, the right to counsel persists until the appellate process is fully exhausted in the state’s highest court.
Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment, concluding that after an independent review of the record, the appeal was wholly frivolous and lacked any arguable basis for reversal.
The court denied counsel’s motion to withdraw, holding that counsel’s duties to the parent continue through the filing of a petition for review in the Texas Supreme Court. If the parent chooses to pursue further review, counsel must file a petition that satisfies the Anders standards in the Supreme Court.
Practical Application
- MSA Integrity: Ensure that every MSA in a Department case contains the “not subject to revocation” language in the exact format required by § 153.0071(d). This case demonstrates that a well-executed MSA is virtually unassailable on appeal.
- Appointed Counsel Burdens: Appointed appellate practitioners must be prepared for the long haul. Even when an appeal is clearly frivolous due to an MSA, your duty of representation extends to the Texas Supreme Court.
- Prove-up Precision: When proving up an MSA involving a parent with drug or violence issues, elicit clear testimony regarding their sobriety at the time of signing and their understanding of the specific rights they are relinquishing or preserving. This “belts and suspenders” approach isolates the judgment from claims of incapacity.
Checklists
Ensuring MSA Finality in SAPCR Litigation
- Confirm the MSA includes the statutory “binding” statement in bold, capital letters, or underlined.
- Verify that all parties and their respective attorneys of record have signed the document.
- Elicit testimony during the prove-up that the client was not under the influence of any substances during mediation.
- Explicitly ask the client on the record if they understand that the trial court must sign the order based on this agreement, regardless of a later change of heart.
- Obtain a specific finding from the trial court that the MSA is in the best interest of the child to satisfy the In re Stephanie standard.
Compliance with Anders and In re P.M. for Appellate Counsel
- Perform a comprehensive review of the entire clerk’s and reporter’s records for any “arguable” error.
- File a formal Anders brief that details the evidence and explains why the law provides no relief.
- Provide the appellant with a copy of the brief and the trial record.
- Notify the appellant of their right to file a pro se response and provide them with the necessary deadlines.
- Do not stop work after the Court of Appeals’ opinion; consult with the client regarding a petition for review.
- If the client insists on a petition for review, prepare a “frivolous petition” for the Texas Supreme Court that mirrors the Anders standard.
Citation
In the Interest of J.M., a Child, No. 12-25-00292-CV, 2026 WL ______ (Tex. App.—Tyler Mar. 11, 2026, no pet. h.) (mem. op.).
Full Opinion
~~e18a8e2b-46c8-4872-9419-5151d220321f~~
Share this content: