Anders Review Finds No Arguable Grounds | In re A.W. (2026)

In the Interest of A.W., a Child, 02-26-00223-CV, August 06, 2026.

On appeal from 324th District Court, Tarrant County, Texas

Synopsis

In this parental-termination appeal, the Fort Worth Court of Appeals performed the required independent Anders review and found no arguable ground to challenge the judgment. The court affirmed the termination order, but it denied appointed counsel’s motion to withdraw because frivolousness alone is not good cause for withdrawal; appointed counsel remains obligated through Texas Supreme Court proceedings unless relieved on some independent basis.

Relevance to Family Law

Although this is a termination case, its procedural holding matters broadly to Texas family-law litigators because it reinforces how appellate courts handle appointed-counsel cases in ultra-accelerated family appeals and clarifies counsel’s continuing duties after filing an Anders brief. For practitioners handling SAPCRs, conservatorship disputes, modification cases with appointed counsel, or any family matter that may trigger indigent-parent representation, A.W. is a reminder that appellate preservation still matters even where the record appears overwhelmingly adverse, and that counsel’s responsibilities do not end with an Anders filing. Strategically, the case also underscores a practical divide between merits review and attorney-withdrawal practice: a no-merit conclusion may support affirmance, but it does not, standing alone, support discharge of appointed appellate counsel.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

The appeal arose from a judgment terminating Mother’s parental rights to her son, A.W. The trial court found multiple predicate grounds under Family Code Section 161.001(b)(1)—subsections (D), (E), (O), and (Q)—and also found termination to be in the child’s best interest under Section 161.001(b)(2). The Department was appointed permanent managing conservator.

The opinion’s factual summary reflects a difficult record for Mother. The trial court heard evidence that she was addicted to drugs, used methamphetamine while pregnant, and had used drugs just two days before the child’s birth. The child tested positive for amphetamines at birth. The record also included Mother’s noncompliance with drug testing, prior Department history, incarceration, arrests during the pendency of the case, failure-to-register and controlled-substance charges, bond violations tied to positive drug tests, mental-health issues, unstable housing, and missed visitation caused in part by incarceration.

On appeal, Mother’s court-appointed attorney did not raise merits issues. Instead, counsel filed an Anders brief representing that, after a diligent review of the appellate record, no nonfrivolous ground for appeal could be identified. Counsel also moved to withdraw. Mother was notified of her rights to review the record and file a pro se response, but she filed none. The Department likewise declined to file a brief.

Issues Decided

• Whether the appellate court’s independent review of the record under Anders v. California and In re K.M. revealed any arguable ground for appeal from the parental-rights termination judgment.
• Whether appointed appellate counsel in a termination appeal may withdraw based solely on the conclusion that the appeal is frivolous.

Rules Applied

The court relied on the familiar Anders framework, as adapted to parental-termination appeals in Texas.

• Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), requires appointed counsel who concludes an appeal is frivolous to file a brief that professionally evaluates the record and explains why no arguable basis for appeal exists.
• In re K.M., 98 S.W.3d 774 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2003, order), applies Anders procedures in parental-rights termination cases.
• Once an Anders brief is filed, the appellate court must independently review the appellate record to determine whether any arguable ground exists. The court cited authorities including Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991), Mays v. State, 904 S.W.2d 920 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1995, no pet.), and later family-law applications of that standard.
• Under Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005), if the court finds no arguable ground, it may affirm without ordering new briefing on the merits.
• As to counsel’s withdrawal request, In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24 (Tex. 2016), controls. In termination cases, appointed counsel’s duties ordinarily continue through proceedings in the Texas Supreme Court, and withdrawal requires good cause independent of the mere conclusion that the appeal lacks merit.
• The court also referenced Texas Family Code Section 107.016(2)(C), which reflects counsel’s continuing statutory obligations in these proceedings.

Application

The court first examined whether counsel’s filing satisfied Anders. It concluded that the brief met the required standard because it contained a professional evaluation of the record and explained why no arguable ground could be advanced. That finding matters: an inadequate no-merit brief can trigger delay, additional briefing, or a remand-like reset in practical effect. Here, however, the court accepted the submission as facially compliant and proceeded to its own review.

The court then undertook the independent examination that Anders requires. It considered counsel’s brief, the clerk’s and reporter’s records, and the absence of any pro se response from Mother. The opinion is concise, but the result makes clear that the court found nothing in the record presenting a nonfrivolous appellate issue—nothing as to the predicate grounds, best interest, procedure, evidence, or preservation that warranted further merits briefing. That is the critical appellate event in an Anders termination case: not simply counsel’s assessment, but the court’s own confirmation that no arguable issue exists.

The court treated counsel’s withdrawal motion separately. Even though it agreed the appeal lacked merit, it held that this did not amount to good cause for withdrawal. That distinction tracks In re P.M. and has significant practical consequence. Appointed counsel in termination appeals must anticipate continued representation obligations after an affirmance, including advising the client regarding further review and, if necessary, pursuing proceedings in the Texas Supreme Court unless and until relieved for some independent reason.

Holding

The court held that, after an independent review of the appellate record under Anders and In re K.M., no arguable ground for appeal existed. On that basis, it affirmed the judgment terminating Mother’s parental rights.

The court separately held that appointed appellate counsel could not withdraw merely because she concluded the appeal was frivolous and the court agreed. Because the record did not show good cause for withdrawal independent of the no-merit conclusion, the motion to withdraw was denied, and counsel remained appointed through Texas Supreme Court proceedings unless later relieved.

Practical Application

For family-law appellate practitioners, A.W. is less about substantive termination doctrine and more about appellate process discipline. If you represent an indigent parent on appeal and conclude the record presents no nonfrivolous issue, this case confirms that your task is twofold: prepare a technically sound Anders brief and remain prepared to continue representation after affirmance. Do not assume that a no-merit filing ends the appointment.

For trial lawyers, the case is a reminder that appellate outcomes in termination cases are often shaped long before notice of appeal. A record containing multiple predicate grounds, drug use during pregnancy, positive newborn testing, incarceration, noncompliance, and instability is highly resistant to appellate attack unless trial counsel has preserved a concrete legal or evidentiary issue. That lesson carries into custody and modification litigation as well: where family cases move on accelerated schedules, preservation failures become outcome-determinative quickly.

For counsel in private custody disputes, this opinion still has indirect value. While Anders itself is tied to appointed representation, A.W. illustrates the court of appeals’ willingness to separate merits analysis from counsel-status questions. That separation has broader strategic implications. In high-risk SAPCR and conservatorship appeals, counsel should independently assess not only whether reversible error exists, but also whether procedural obligations to the client continue notwithstanding an unfavorable merits posture.

Practitioners should also view A.W. as a client-management case. Appointed appellate counsel must document advisements carefully: the right to review the record, the right to file a pro se response, the mechanics for obtaining the record, and the right to seek Texas Supreme Court review. Those notifications are not housekeeping; they are part of building an appellate file that will withstand scrutiny if the no-merit disposition is later questioned.

Checklists

Anders Brief Compliance Checklist

• Confirm that the case is one in which Anders procedures apply, including parental-rights termination appeals involving appointed counsel.
• Conduct a full review of the clerk’s record and reporter’s record.
• Identify and analyze all potentially arguable issues, even if ultimately meritless.
• Prepare a brief that provides a professional evaluation of the record rather than a conclusory assertion of frivolousness.
• Explain why each potential issue does not present an arguable basis for reversal.
• Ensure the brief is sufficient for the appellate court to conduct its independent review.

Client-Notice Checklist for Appointed Appellate Counsel

• Notify the client that an Anders brief and motion to withdraw have been filed.
• Inform the client of the right to obtain and review the appellate record.
• Provide clear instructions for how the client may access the record.
• Inform the client of the deadline and right to file a pro se response.
• Advise the client of the right to seek review in the Texas Supreme Court if the court of appeals affirms.
• Preserve written proof of all notifications and transmittals.

Trial Counsel Preservation Checklist in Termination Cases

• Preserve evidentiary objections with specificity and obtain rulings.
• Challenge predicate-ground sufficiency and best-interest sufficiency where supportable.
• Make clear records regarding service-plan compliance, drug testing disputes, visitation barriers, incarceration timelines, and housing evidence.
• Preserve complaints about procedural irregularities, notice defects, or appointment issues.
• Request findings, clarifications, or record development where needed to sharpen appellate issues.
• Anticipate the ultra-accelerated appellate timetable and prepare the record accordingly.

Withdrawal-Risk Checklist for Appointed Counsel

• Do not assume that a no-merit appeal supplies good cause to withdraw.
• Evaluate whether any independent basis for withdrawal exists and can be documented.
• Review In re P.M. before filing any withdrawal request in a termination appeal.
• Be prepared to continue representation through petition-for-review proceedings.
• Calendar post-opinion deadlines immediately upon affirmance.
• Continue client communication after disposition unless and until the appointment is formally terminated.

Department/Appellee Strategy Checklist

• Evaluate whether filing a responsive brief is strategically necessary even in an Anders posture.
• Review the record independently for any procedural vulnerability the court may identify on its own review.
• Confirm that the termination order and record support each predicate ground found.
• Verify that best-interest evidence is sufficiently developed in the record.
• Anticipate that counsel-withdrawal issues may remain live even after affirmance.
• In future cases, build a record that is not merely persuasive on the merits but resilient on appellate review.

Citation

In the Interest of A.W., a Child, No. 02-26-00223-CV, 2026 WL ___ (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Aug. 6, 2026, no pet.) (mem. op.).

Full Opinion

Read the full opinion here

~~4f053b5c-689c-4a17-8ed7-4f559ba31bc4~~