Anders Review Finds No Arguable Grounds | In re H.F. (2026)

In the Interest of H.F., a Child, 02-26-00160-CV, July 30, 2026.

On appeal from 467th District Court, Denton County, Texas

Synopsis

In this parental-rights termination appeal, the Fort Worth Court of Appeals held that once appointed counsel files an Anders brief, the court must independently review the entire appellate record, counsel’s brief, and any pro se response to determine whether any nonfrivolous ground for appeal exists. Finding no arguable reversible error, the court affirmed the termination order and denied counsel’s motion to withdraw because frivolousness alone is not good cause for withdrawal under In re P.M.

Relevance to Family Law

Although this is a termination case, its practical reach extends into the broader family-law docket because it reinforces appellate discipline in high-stakes parent-child litigation. For litigators handling SAPCRs, conservatorship disputes, modifications, and even divorce cases with serious child-related findings, H.F. is a reminder that appellate complaints rise or fall on the trial record actually made—not on post-judgment explanations, extra-record documents, or generalized fairness arguments. It also underscores that appointed counsel in termination matters carries continuing obligations through potential Texas Supreme Court proceedings, a point with important workload and case-management consequences for court-appointed family-law practitioners.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

Mother appealed an order terminating her parental rights to her daughter. The trial court terminated under Family Code Section 161.001(b)(1)(D) and (E), and found termination to be in the child’s best interest under Section 161.001(b)(2). The Department was appointed permanent managing conservator.

On appeal, Mother’s appointed counsel filed an Anders brief, representing that after professional review of the record, no nonfrivolous appellate issue could be identified. The court gave Mother the opportunity to obtain the record and file a pro se response, which she did. Her response generally challenged the sufficiency and fairness of the proceedings, emphasized recent progress toward sobriety, asserted difficulties completing services, and suggested that some missed drug testing was attributable to identification problems rather than refusal.

The opinion’s footnote discussion is instructive because it shows the type of record the court had before it during its independent review. The record reflected that the child was removed after testing positive for methamphetamine in June 2025; Mother also tested positive at that time and signed an acknowledgment admitting methamphetamine use while the child was in the home. The record further reflected additional positive drug tests in July, August, October, and January, several missed tests during the case, discharge from therapy for nonattendance, homelessness at the time of trial, and unemployment for approximately five months. The court also noted that Mother’s pro se arguments relied in part on material not admitted at trial, which the appellate court could not consider.

Issues Decided

• Whether the appeal from the termination order presented any nonfrivolous, arguable ground for reversal under Anders v. California and In re K.M.
• Whether the court’s independent review of the record, counsel’s Anders brief, and Mother’s pro se response revealed any reversible error
• Whether appointed appellate counsel should be permitted to withdraw after filing an Anders brief in a parental-rights termination appeal

Rules Applied

The court applied the established Anders framework as adapted to Texas parental-rights appeals.

• Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967): when appointed counsel concludes an appeal is frivolous, counsel must file a brief demonstrating a professional evaluation of the record and explaining why no arguable grounds exist.
• In re K.M., 98 S.W.3d 774 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2003, order): Anders procedures apply in parental-rights termination appeals.
• Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991), and related Anders authorities: the appellate court must independently examine the record to determine whether any arguable ground exists.
• In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008): the court may consider both the Anders brief and any pro se response in conducting its review.
• Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005): if the court finds no arguable issues after independent review, it may affirm.
• In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24 (Tex. 2016): appointed counsel in a termination appeal is not entitled to withdraw merely because counsel believes the appeal is frivolous; absent independent good cause, counsel remains appointed through proceedings in the Texas Supreme Court.
• Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), and (b)(2): the substantive statutory bases for termination and best-interest findings.
• Tex. Fam. Code § 107.016(2)(C): counsel’s continuing duties in suits affecting the parent-child relationship.
• The court also relied on the settled evidentiary principle that appellate review is confined to evidence admitted at trial.

Application

The court approached the appeal exactly as Anders requires. It first confirmed that counsel’s brief satisfied the threshold requirements by presenting a professional evaluation of the appellate record and explaining why no arguable issue could be advanced in good faith. That point matters because the quality of the Anders submission frames the court’s own review and signals whether counsel has fully discharged the duty owed to the client and the court.

The court then extended Mother the procedural protections associated with Anders review by allowing access to the appellate record and an opportunity to file a pro se response. Mother took that opportunity, but her response did not identify a viable appellate issue. Instead, the response largely reargued the equities of the case, emphasized recent progress, and referenced materials or explanations outside the trial record. The court’s treatment of those arguments is notable: it did not dismiss them summarily, but tested them against the actual record and against the limits of appellate review. Where the record contradicted or diluted Mother’s assertions—particularly as to sobriety, service completion, and stability—the court said so. Where Mother relied on unadmitted materials, the court expressly refused to consider them.

Having reviewed counsel’s brief, Mother’s response, and the full record, the court concluded there was no reversible error and no nonfrivolous ground for appeal. The memorandum does not undertake a merits-style analysis of every potential issue, which is typical in Anders dispositions; instead, it records that the required independent review occurred and that no arguable issue emerged from that review.

The court separately addressed counsel’s request to withdraw. Applying In re P.M., the court held that counsel’s conclusion that the appeal was frivolous did not itself establish good cause to withdraw. Because the record showed no independent basis for withdrawal, the motion was denied, and counsel remained appointed through further review in the Texas Supreme Court unless later relieved.

Holding

The court held that the appeal presented no nonfrivolous, arguable ground for reversal. After independently reviewing the appellate record, the Anders brief, and Mother’s pro se response, the court found no reversible error and affirmed the order terminating Mother’s parental rights.

The court also held that appointed appellate counsel was not entitled to withdraw merely because counsel determined the appeal was frivolous. Under In re P.M., absent good cause independent of that conclusion, counsel remains obligated to continue representation through potential proceedings in the Texas Supreme Court.

Practical Application

For Texas family-law litigators, H.F. is less about changing substantive termination law and more about sharpening appellate practice in parent-child cases. First, it reinforces that in a termination appeal, broad equitable themes—recent improvement, claimed rehabilitation, service obstacles, or generalized unfairness—do not become appellate issues unless they are tied to preserved complaints and supported by the record admitted at trial. If your client’s explanation for missed tests, failed services, housing instability, or procedural irregularities is real and material, it must be developed in the evidentiary record before judgment.

Second, the case is a useful template for assessing whether a termination appeal has actual appellate traction. Trial counsel and appellate counsel should be evaluating the record for preserved legal-sufficiency challenges, evidentiary complaints, procedural due-process issues, statutory-compliance defects, and charge or predicate-ground problems—not simply whether the client strongly disagrees with the outcome. That lesson carries into custody and modification appeals as well: appellate courts decide based on preserved error and record support, not on post-trial narrative reconstruction.

Third, for appointed counsel, H.F. is another reminder that Anders practice in parental-rights appeals imposes ongoing obligations. Even after affirmance, counsel may remain in the case for petition-for-review purposes absent independent good cause to withdraw. Practitioners should plan accordingly in engagement expectations, calendaring, file maintenance, and client communications.

Finally, for trial lawyers, this opinion highlights the strategic cost of underdeveloped trial records. In child-protection and high-conflict SAPCR cases alike, arguments about progress, compliance barriers, procedural fairness, and the reliability of Department proof must be built through testimony, exhibits, offers of proof, objections, and preservation. An appellate court performing Anders review will not repair omissions in the trial court record.

Checklists

Preserving an Appellate Record in a Termination Case

• Make sure all service-compliance explanations are supported by admitted evidence, not merely argument
• Introduce documentary proof of completed services, scheduling conflicts, transportation problems, identification issues, or treatment participation
• Preserve evidentiary objections clearly and obtain rulings on the record
• If a witness references inaccurate facts, correct the record through cross-examination and rebuttal evidence
• Request findings, clarifications, or additional record development when appropriate
• Make offers of proof when evidence is excluded
• Tie all trial themes—recovery, reunification, housing progress, employment progress—to admissible evidence

Evaluating Whether an Appeal Has a Nonfrivolous Ground

• Review legal and factual sufficiency issues as to each predicate ground submitted or found
• Analyze the best-interest evidence under the governing standards
• Check for preservation of procedural due-process complaints
• Examine whether statutory deadlines, notices, and appointment requirements were satisfied
• Review the admission or exclusion of key evidence for harmful error
• Confirm whether any judicial-bias or fairness complaints are supported by the record rather than speculation
• Distinguish between client disagreement with the judgment and an actual reversible appellate issue

Responding to an Anders Filing as Appointed Counsel

• Prepare a true professional evaluation of the record rather than a conclusory no-merit filing
• Identify the procedural history, applicable standards, and potential issues considered
• Ensure the client is informed of the right to review the record and file a pro se response
• Maintain documentation showing compliance with notice obligations to the client
• Be prepared for the appellate court’s independent review of the entire record
• Do not assume affirmance will automatically result in permission to withdraw
• Calendar deadlines for post-opinion responsibilities, including possible petition-for-review deadlines

Avoiding the Problems Faced by the Non-Prevailing Parent

• Do not rely on extra-record documents to explain missed drug tests or service failures
• Present evidence of sobriety with dates, test results, treatment records, and witness testimony
• Address missed tests directly and contemporaneously in the trial court
• Document housing and employment stability before trial, not after judgment
• Avoid vague allegations of unfairness that are unsupported by specific record references
• If alleging irregularity or bias, develop admissible evidence and preserve the complaint
• Recognize that late-stage improvement may not overcome a record of continued instability unless presented in a compelling, well-supported way

Practice Management for Court-Appointed Appellate Counsel

• Advise the client early that representation may continue through Texas Supreme Court proceedings
• Build internal workflows for Anders cases that include post-opinion responsibilities
• Retain organized copies of the clerk’s and reporter’s records for possible further review
• Send prompt post-opinion correspondence explaining the result and remaining options
• Evaluate whether any independent good cause exists before moving to withdraw
• Coordinate with trial counsel when additional file materials are needed for accurate appellate review
• Track ultra-accelerated appellate timelines carefully in termination matters

Citation

In re H.F., a Child, No. 02-26-00160-CV, 2026 WL ___ (Tex. App.—Fort Worth July 30, 2026, no pet.) (mem. op.).

Full Opinion

Read the full opinion here

~~227d6701-255d-463d-b056-2465b5633eaf~~