Eighth Court of Appeals Affirms Termination of Father’s Parental Rights After Anders Review in In re J.K.C.

In the Interest of J.K.C., 08-25-00328-CV, April 10, 2026.

On appeal from 143rd District Court, Ward County, Texas

Synopsis

In In re J.K.C., the Eighth Court of Appeals affirmed a termination order after appointed appellate counsel filed an Anders brief stating no non-frivolous appellate issues existed. After its own independent review, the court found no arguable basis to challenge the trial court’s findings under Texas Family Code § 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), and (N), or the best-interest finding, and it also denied counsel’s motion to withdraw because appointed representation continues through the petition-for-review stage.

Relevance to Family Law

Although this is a parental-rights termination case rather than a divorce or SAPCR modification appeal, it matters to Texas family litigators broadly because it reinforces two recurring realities of family practice: first, endangerment findings under subsections (D) and (E) remain especially significant because of their collateral consequences in future cases involving conservatorship and parental fitness; second, appellate preservation and record development remain decisive in all family-law litigation, including custody disputes, modifications, and Department cases. For practitioners handling divorce and custody matters, the opinion is a reminder that findings touching parental endangerment, abandonment, and best interest can become effectively unassailable on appeal when the record is thin, no viable legal error is preserved, and appointed counsel concludes that an Anders posture is warranted.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

The trial court terminated the father’s parental rights to J.K.C. after a bench trial. The court found three predicate grounds under Texas Family Code § 161.001(b)(1): subsection (D), for endangering conditions or surroundings; subsection (E), for endangering conduct; and subsection (N), for constructive abandonment. The trial court also found that termination was in the child’s best interest and appointed the Department of Family and Protective Services as permanent managing conservator.

On appeal, the father was represented by court-appointed counsel. Appellate counsel did not identify a reversible issue, instead filing an Anders brief representing that the appeal presented no non-frivolous grounds. Counsel complied with the procedural requirements associated with Anders practice in termination appeals by furnishing the father with the brief and appellate record, advising him of his right to file a pro se response, and notifying him of his right to seek further review if the appeal were deemed frivolous. The father filed no pro se response, and the Department did not file an appellate brief.

The Eighth Court therefore approached the case not as a conventional merits appeal with contested briefing, but through the Anders framework, which required the court to independently examine the entire record to determine whether any arguable ground for reversal existed. The court specifically noted its review of the subsection (D) and (E) findings and the best-interest determination.

Issues Decided

• Whether the appellate record revealed any arguable, non-frivolous ground for reversing the trial court’s termination order.
• Whether there was any arguable basis to challenge the predicate findings under Texas Family Code § 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), and (N).
• Whether there was any arguable basis to challenge the trial court’s best-interest finding under Texas Family Code § 161.001(b)(2).
• Whether court-appointed appellate counsel in a termination appeal may withdraw after filing an Anders brief and obtaining affirmance from the court of appeals.

Rules Applied

The court applied the Anders procedure as recognized in parental-rights termination appeals. The core authorities cited were:

• Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), which authorizes appointed counsel to file a brief explaining why an appeal is frivolous while ensuring the appellant receives procedural protections.
• In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24 (Tex. 2016) (per curiam), which confirms that Anders procedures apply in parental-rights termination cases and that appointed counsel’s duties continue through proceedings in the Texas Supreme Court, including the filing of a petition for review.
• Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), which underscores the reviewing court’s obligation to independently review the record when counsel asserts no non-frivolous appellate issue exists.
• Texas Family Code § 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), and (N), governing predicate grounds for termination.
• Texas Family Code § 161.001(b)(2), requiring proof that termination is in the child’s best interest.
• Texas Family Code § 107.016(2)(B), providing that the right to appointed counsel in termination cases extends through exhaustion or waiver of all appeals.

The opinion also reflects the usual appellate caution given to subsection (D) and (E) findings. Even in the abbreviated Anders context, the court expressly noted review of those grounds, consistent with the heightened importance of endangerment findings in later family-law proceedings.

Application

The Eighth Court followed the standard Anders sequence. It first determined that appellate counsel’s brief was facially adequate because it provided a professional evaluation of the record and explained why no arguable appellate issue could be advanced. The court then confirmed that counsel had complied with the notice requirements owed to the father, including advising him of his right to submit a pro se response and his right to pursue discretionary review.

From there, the court turned to its own role. Rather than simply accepting counsel’s assessment, it conducted an independent review of the entire record. The opinion is concise, but it is notable that the court expressly identified its review of the trial court’s subsection (D) and (E) findings and the best-interest finding. That matters because endangerment findings carry consequences beyond the immediate case and often draw closer scrutiny in termination appeals. After that review, the court found no arguable ground for reversal.

The withdrawal motion was treated separately. Although counsel had completed the court-of-appeals briefing process, the court denied withdrawal because Texas law does not treat appointed representation in termination cases as ending with affirmance. Under In re P.M. and Family Code § 107.016(2)(B), appointed counsel remains obligated through exhaustion of appellate remedies, including the filing of a petition for review in the Texas Supreme Court if appropriate.

Holding

The court held that the appeal presented no arguable ground for reversal. After independently reviewing the entire appellate record pursuant to Anders, Penson, and In re P.M., the Eighth Court affirmed the trial court’s order terminating the father’s parental rights. In doing so, the court necessarily concluded there was no non-frivolous appellate challenge to the findings under § 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), and (N), or to the best-interest finding under § 161.001(b)(2).

The court also held that appointed appellate counsel was not entitled to withdraw at that stage of the proceedings. Relying on Texas Family Code § 107.016(2)(B) and In re P.M., the court denied the motion to withdraw because appointed counsel’s representation continues through the exhaustion or waiver of all appeals, including proceedings in the Texas Supreme Court.

Practical Application

For lawyers who try and appeal family cases, In re J.K.C. is less about doctrinal innovation than about appellate discipline. In Department cases, if the trial record is not meaningfully vulnerable on legal or factual sufficiency, evidentiary preservation, due process, or statutory compliance, an Anders affirmance is a real possibility. That is particularly true where the challenged findings include subsections (D) and (E), and the appellate court independently sees no basis to disturb them.

For trial counsel representing parents, the strategic takeaway is straightforward: if you anticipate an appeal, build it at trial. Force precision in the Department’s proof on endangerment, abandonment, reasonable efforts, service-plan compliance, visitation, placement history, and best interest. Make and obtain rulings on objections. Preserve complaints about notice, continuances, relative placements, evidentiary exclusions, and procedural irregularities. Without that work, appellate counsel may be left with a record that yields no colorable issue.

For lawyers representing the Department or children, the case underscores the value of a clean record and express findings. Where the evidence supports multiple predicate grounds and best interest, and the trial court’s findings are well supported, the judgment is more likely to survive even an independent Anders review. This logic carries over into private SAPCR and modification litigation as well: credibility-based family judgments become difficult to overturn when the prevailing party developed a coherent factual record and the losing party failed to preserve legal error.

Finally, for appellate practitioners, the opinion is a useful reminder that appointed counsel in termination appeals cannot assume the representation ends with the court of appeals’ disposition. Counsel must be prepared to advise the client regarding further review and, where required, continue representation through the petition-for-review phase.

Checklists

Parent-Appellate Preservation Checklist

• Challenge each predicate ground separately when the record allows, especially subsections (D) and (E).
• Preserve legal- and factual-sufficiency complaints through appropriate trial strategy, even though sufficiency may often be raised on appeal.
• Obtain rulings on evidentiary objections rather than allowing objections to remain implicit or unresolved.
• Make a clear record on service-plan compliance, visitation barriers, transportation issues, incarceration issues, or Department-caused obstacles.
• Preserve due-process complaints involving notice, interpreter issues, continuance denials, participation barriers, or ineffective assistance concerns.
• Request clarity in the trial court’s oral pronouncements and written findings if ambiguity could affect appellate review.

Trial Counsel Checklist in Termination Cases

• Develop affirmative evidence negating endangerment, not merely cross-examination attacking the Department’s witnesses.
• Address best-interest factors with concrete testimony from caregivers, providers, relatives, and the parent.
• Create a record on the parent’s progress, sobriety, housing, employment, treatment, and support network.
• Document visitation efforts and any impediments to maintaining contact with the child.
• Contest constructive abandonment with evidence regarding communication, attempted visitation, and barriers outside the parent’s control.
• Ensure exhibits are admitted and usable on appeal, not merely marked.

Department/Petitioner Record-Building Checklist

• Tie the evidence distinctly to each pleaded predicate ground rather than relying on generalized concerns.
• Build a separate and thorough best-interest record instead of assuming predicate-ground evidence will carry the issue by itself.
• Present testimony supporting the Department’s reasonable efforts and the parent’s response to offered services.
• Clarify timelines, placements, visitation history, and the child’s current needs and stability.
• Obtain a clear final order with explicit predicate and best-interest findings.
• Anticipate appellate scrutiny of subsections (D) and (E) and ensure those findings are independently supported.

Anders-Procedure Compliance Checklist for Appointed Appellate Counsel

• File a brief that reflects a professional evaluation of the entire record and explains why no non-frivolous issues exist.
• Provide the client with a copy of the brief and access to the appellate record.
• Advise the client in writing of the right to file a pro se response.
• Advise the client of the right to seek discretionary review if the court of appeals affirms.
• Do not assume withdrawal will be granted after affirmance.
• Be prepared to continue representation through the petition-for-review stage under In re P.M. and Texas Family Code § 107.016(2)(B).

Avoiding the Non-Prevailing Party’s Outcome

• Do not rely on a generalized assertion that the evidence was weak; identify precise legal defects.
• Do not leave subsection (D) and (E) findings uncontested if any viable challenge exists.
• Do not neglect the best-interest record; a weak response there often eliminates meaningful appellate traction.
• Do not assume appellate counsel can create arguments that trial counsel failed to preserve.
• Do not overlook collateral consequences of endangerment findings in later conservatorship or termination proceedings.
• Do not treat appointed appellate representation as ending at the intermediate court of appeals.

Citation

In the Interest of J.K.C., No. 08-25-00328-CV, 2026 WL ___ (Tex. App.—El Paso Apr. 10, 2026, no pet.) (mem. op.).

Full Opinion

Read the full opinion here

~~490b5698-1f55-42fe-a434-84cfcd5be100~~