In the Interest of A.R. and C.R., Children

In the Interest of A.R. and C.R., Children, 10-25-00376-CV, March 19, 2026.

On appeal from the 52nd District Court of Coryell County, Texas.

Synopsis

The Tenth Court of Appeals affirmed a decree of parental termination following an Anders review, but denied appointed counsel’s motion to withdraw. The court held that under the Texas Supreme Court’s mandate in In re P.M., the statutory right to counsel in termination proceedings persists through the filing of a petition for review, rendering a motion to withdraw premature at the intermediate appellate stage.

Relevance to Family Law

For the Texas family law litigator, this case reinforces the heightened procedural safeguards and "long-tail" representation requirements inherent in parental termination suits. Unlike standard civil or even certain domestic relations matters where an attorney may withdraw upon a showing of "good cause" or completion of a specific stage of litigation, court-appointed counsel in termination cases remains tethered to the client through the exhaustion of all appellate remedies. This decision highlights that filing an Anders brief does not serve as an automatic "exit ramp" for appointed counsel; the duty of representation remains active through the Texas Supreme Court unless specific "good cause"—independent of the appeal's merit—is established.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

The trial court entered an order terminating the parental rights of Mother to her children, A.R. and C.R., and appointed the Department of Family and Protective Services as the permanent managing conservator. Following the entry of the termination decree, Mother’s appointed appellate counsel filed an Anders brief. Counsel represented to the Court that he had diligently reviewed the record and concluded that the appeal was wholly frivolous and lacked any arguable grounds for reversal. In compliance with his "educational duties," counsel informed Mother of her right to review the record and file a pro se response; however, Mother did not file a response. Accompanying the Anders brief was a motion to withdraw as counsel.

Issues Decided

1. Whether the record supported counsel’s assertion that the appeal was frivolous under the Anders standard.
2. Whether appointed counsel in a parental termination case is entitled to withdraw from representation immediately upon the filing of a meritorious Anders brief.

Rules Applied

• Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967): Established the procedural framework for appointed counsel to withdraw from a frivolous appeal while protecting the appellant's due process rights.
• In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24 (Tex. 2016): The seminal Texas Supreme Court case holding that the statutory right to counsel in termination cases under Tex. Fam. Code § 107.013(a) extends to all proceedings in the Texas Supreme Court, including the filing of a petition for review.
• Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988): Mandates that an appellate court perform an independent review of the record to determine if an appeal is truly frivolous after counsel files an Anders brief.
• Texas Family Code § 161.001: The statutory basis for the termination of parental rights.

Application

The Tenth Court of Appeals first addressed its independent obligation to vet the record. Applying the Penson standard, the court scrutinized the facts and procedural history detailed in counsel’s brief. It concluded that the arguments were indeed frivolous because they could not "conceivability persuade the court" to reverse the trial court’s order.

However, the legal narrative shifted when the court addressed the motion to withdraw. While counsel had satisfied the educational and briefing requirements of Anders, the court applied the strictures of In re P.M. In termination cases, the Texas Supreme Court has clarified that "good cause" for withdrawal does not include the mere conclusion that an appeal is frivolous. Because Mother’s statutory right to counsel continues until all appeals are exhausted, the Tenth Court of Appeals determined that counsel’s motion was premature. The legal story here is one of continuity; the appellate court affirms the judgment but keeps the attorney-client relationship intact to ensure the parent has the opportunity to seek discretionary review from the high court.

Holding

The Tenth Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s order of termination. The court found that the appeal was frivolous after an independent review of the record and that counsel had fulfilled all requisite educational duties toward the appellant.

The court denied counsel’s motion to withdraw. It held that the motion was premature under In re P.M. and that appointed counsel’s obligations persist through any potential proceedings in the Texas Supreme Court, including the filing of a petition for review, unless the attorney is relieved of his duties by the high court or for other specific good cause.

Practical Application

This opinion serves as a procedural roadmap and a warning for appointed counsel in termination cases. Practitioners must understand that the "Anders process" in the Court of Appeals is a bifurcated path: while it may lead to an affirmance of the trial court’s judgment, it does not lead to an immediate discharge of the attorney. If your client intends to file a petition for review, you are the attorney responsible for that filing, regardless of your personal assessment of the case's merits.

Checklists

Navigating the Anders Process in Termination Appeals

• Conduct a Diligent Review: Ensure the entire record (reporter’s and clerk’s) is scrutinized for any arguable points of error.
• Satisfy Educational Duties: Provide the client with a copy of the Anders brief and the motion to withdraw.
• Facilitate Pro Se Access: Notify the client of their right to file a pro se response and provide them with the necessary forms or instructions to access the record.
• Verify Compliance: Ensure the brief references the specific facts and legal authorities that demonstrate why no reversible error exists.

Post-Opinion Representation Duties

• Notify the Client of the Affirmance: Immediately inform the client of the Court of Appeals' decision.
• Advise on Discretionary Review: Counsel must advise the client regarding the right to file a petition for review in the Texas Supreme Court.
• Maintain the Appointment: Recognize that the In re P.M. mandate requires you to remain "counsel of record" until the Texas Supreme Court either acts on a petition for review or otherwise relieves you.
• Avoid Premature Withdrawal: Do not assume that the filing of an Anders brief terminates the attorney-client relationship; prepare for the possibility of drafting a petition for review if requested by the client.

Citation

In the Interest of A.R. and C.R., Children, No. 10-25-00376-CV (Tex. App.—Waco Mar. 19, 2026, no pet. h.) (mem. op.).

Full Opinion

View the full opinion here.

~~7fe891af-298e-4bca-8029-18c6472d721e~~