Texas Appeals Court Affirms Termination of Parental Rights
Summary
The Texas Court of Appeals, 10th District (Waco), affirmed a trial court's termination of a mother's parental rights to two children. The mother's attorney filed an Anders brief, indicating the appeal was frivolous, and the mother did not file a pro se response.
What changed
The Texas Court of Appeals has affirmed a trial court's decision to terminate a mother's parental rights to her two children, A.R. and C.R. The court's memorandum opinion, issued by Justice Smith, notes that the trial court had appointed the Department of Family and Protective Services as the children's managing conservator. The mother's attorney filed an Anders brief, asserting that the appeal lacked merit, and the mother did not submit a response.
This ruling signifies the finality of the termination order from the appellate court's perspective. For legal professionals involved in child welfare cases, this case serves as an example of how appeals are handled when counsel deems them frivolous, and the implications for parental rights when such appeals are unsuccessful. The disposition means the trial court's decision stands, and the children remain under the conservatorship of the state agency.
Source document (simplified)
Jump To
Top Caption Disposition Lead Opinion The text of this document was obtained by analyzing a scanned document and may have typos.
Support FLP
CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.
Please become a member today.
March 19, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note
In the Interest of A.R. and C.R., Children v. the State of Texas
Texas Court of Appeals, 10th District (Waco)
- Citations: None known
- Docket Number: 10-25-00376-CV
- Nature of Suit: Termination of parental rights or conservatorship - accelerated
Disposition: Affirmed
Disposition
Affirmed
Lead Opinion
Court of Appeals
Tenth Appellate District of Texas
10-25-00376-CV
In the Interest of A.R. and C.R., Children
On appeal from the
52nd District Court of Coryell County, Texas
Judge Cheryll Mabray, presiding
Trial Court Cause No. DC-24-55511
JUSTICE SMITH delivered the opinion of the Court.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
The trial court terminated Mother’s parental rights to A.R. and C.R. and
appointed the Department of Family and Protective Services as managing
conservator of the children.1 See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 161.001. Mother’s
attorney has now filed an Anders brief asserting that he diligently reviewed
the record and that he believes the appeal is frivolous. See generally Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967); In re A.S., 653
S.W.3d 298 (Tex. App.—Waco 2022, no pet.). Mother did not file a pro se
response to counsel’s Anders brief.
1 The trial court also terminated Father’s parental rights to both children. Father did not appeal.
Counsel’s brief details the relevant facts of the case and its procedural
history, and demonstrates why, under controlling authority, there exists no
reversible error in the trial court’s termination order. See Stafford v. State,
813 S.W.2d 503, 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We further conclude that
counsel performed the educational duties required of appointed counsel upon
the filing of an Anders brief. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; In re A.S., 653 S.W.3d
at 299-300.
As the reviewing appellate court, it is our duty upon receiving an Anders
brief to independently examine the record to determine whether the appeal is
frivolous. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988). Arguments are frivolous
when they “cannot conceivably persuade the court.” McCoy v. Court of Appeals,
486 U.S. 429, 436 (1988). We have reviewed the entire record and counsel’s
brief, and we have determined that the appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we
affirm the trial court’s order of termination.
Counsel’s motion to withdraw as Mother's counsel is premature and is
denied. See In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 (Tex. 2016). Accordingly, if Mother
desires to file a petition for review, her appellate counsel remains appointed in
this case through any proceedings in the Texas Supreme Court unless
otherwise relieved of his duties. See id.
In the Interest of A.R. and C.R., Children Page 2
STEVE SMITH
Justice
OPINION DELIVERED and FILED: March 19, 2026
Before Chief Justice Johnson,
Justice Smith, and
Justice Harris
Affirmed; Motion denied
CV06
In the Interest of A.R. and C.R., Children Page 3
Related changes
Source
Classification
Who this affects
Taxonomy
Browse Categories
Get Courts & Legal alerts
Weekly digest. AI-summarized, no noise.
Free. Unsubscribe anytime.
Get alerts for this source
We'll email you when Texas Court of Appeals publishes new changes.