Background
After a bench trial, the County Court at Law No. 1 of Johnson County terminated Father’s parental rights to B.L.H. and Mother’s parental rights to B.L.H., M.L.H.-C., P.M.S.S., and D.R.D.S. The court appointed the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services as the children’s managing conservator.
Mother did not challenge the termination of her parental rights. She challenged only the Department’s appointment as managing conservator, arguing that the evidence was legally and factually insufficient to overcome the parental presumption under Texas Family Code section 153.131. Father’s appointed attorney filed an Anders brief asserting that Father’s appeal presented no arguable ground for reversal and moved to withdraw.
The Court’s Holding
The Tenth Court of Appeals held that Mother lacked standing to challenge the Department’s appointment as managing conservator. Because the unchallenged termination order divested Mother of her legal rights and duties concerning all four children, the conservatorship appointment was a consequence of termination that she could no longer contest. The court therefore overruled her sole appellate issue without reaching its evidentiary merits.
After independently reviewing the full record and Father’s counsel’s Anders brief, the court agreed that Father’s appeal was wholly frivolous and affirmed the termination of his parental rights to B.L.H. The court denied counsel’s motion to withdraw as premature because counsel remains appointed through any Texas Supreme Court proceedings unless otherwise relieved.
Key Takeaways
- A parent who does not challenge the termination of parental rights lacks standing to separately contest the Department’s appointment as the child’s managing conservator.
- The court treated the Department’s conservatorship as a consequence of the affirmed, unchallenged termination order.
- After its independent Anders review, the court found no arguable ground for reversing the termination of Father’s parental rights.
- Father’s appellate counsel was not permitted to withdraw and remains appointed through potential Texas Supreme Court proceedings unless relieved.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that a parent generally cannot rely on the Family Code’s parental presumption to challenge conservatorship after allowing the termination of parental rights to stand. Once termination divests the parent of legal rights and duties, the parent lacks standing to attack the resulting appointment of the Department as managing conservator.
The opinion also reiterates appointed counsel’s continuing obligations in parental-termination cases following an unsuccessful Anders appeal, including representation through possible proceedings in the Texas Supreme Court unless counsel is formally relieved.