In the Interest of A.B., R.B., and S.B., Children v. the State of Texas

No. 11-25-00172-CV · Texas Court of Appeals, Eleventh District at Eastland · December 4, 2025 · No. 11-25-00172-CV

Summary

The Eleventh Court of Appeals of Texas affirmed an order terminating Appellant-Mother’s parental rights to A.B., R.B., and S.B. The trial court found endangerment, failure to comply with a court-ordered service plan, and that termination was in the children’s best interest. The appellate court independently reviewed counsel’s Anders brief, denied counsel’s motion to withdraw as premature under In re P.M., and affirmed the termination order.

Court
Texas Court of Appeals, Eleventh District at Eastland
Writing for the Court
John M. Bailey, Chief Justice; Trotter, Justice; Williams, Justice
Jurisdiction
Texas Court of Appeals, Eleventh District
Decision date
December 4, 2025
Docket number
11-25-00172-CV
Procedural posture
Appellant-Mother appealed an order terminating her parental rights. Her court-appointed counsel filed an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw.
Standard of review
In an Anders appeal, the court of appeals independently reviews the record and applicable law to determine whether the appeal is frivolous and without merit.
Precedential value
Published opinion; precedential value not otherwise specified in the provided text.
Parties
Appellant-Mother v. The State of Texas
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

termination of parental rightsparental rightsfamily law procedureappellate procedurestandard of review

Practice areas

family lawappellate procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the Anders review showed any arguable issue warranting reversal of the order terminating Appellant-Mother's parental rights.
  2. Whether court-appointed counsel's motion to withdraw filed in the court of appeals was premature under In re P.M. when no additional ground for withdrawal was shown.
  3. Whether the trial court's order terminating Appellant-Mother's parental rights should be affirmed.

Holdings

  1. After independently reviewing the record and applicable law, the court agreed with appointed counsel that Appellant-Mother's appeal was frivolous and without merit.
  2. In a parental-rights termination case, an Anders motion to withdraw filed in the court of appeals is premature absent an additional ground for withdrawal because appointed counsel's duty generally extends through exhaustion of all appeals.
  3. The trial court's order terminating Appellant-Mother's parental rights to A.B., R.B., and S.B. was affirmed.

Key quotations

Accordingly, we deny counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm the trial court’s order of termination. (4)

Factual background

The Department of Family and Protective Services investigated after finding the children living in a home without running water and pending condemnation, with the children suffering from inadequate food, injuries, illness, and failure to thrive. The Department provided family-based safety services, housing information, and basic necessities, but the parents repeatedly failed to comply with services and continued living in parks or temporary shelters without demonstrating stable housing, income, or the ability to meet the children's basic needs. The trial court found that Appellant endangered the children, failed to comply with her court-ordered service plan, and that termination was in the children's best interest.

Procedural history

The 326th District Court of Taylor County terminated Appellant-Mother's parental rights under Texas Family Code sections 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), and (O), finding termination to be in the children's best interest under section 161.001(b)(2). On appeal, appointed counsel filed an Anders brief and moved to withdraw. The court of appeals independently reviewed the record, denied the motion to withdraw as premature under In re P.M., and affirmed the termination order.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…