In the Interest of J. K. C., a Child v. the State of Texas
Docket 08-25-00328-CV
Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research
- Filed
- Jurisdiction
- Texas
- Court
- Texas Court of Appeals, 8th District (El Paso)
- Type
- Lead Opinion
- Case type
- Family
- Disposition
- Affirmed
- Docket
- 08-25-00328-CV
Appeal from a bench trial terminating a father's parental rights
Summary
The Court of Appeals of the Eighth District of Texas affirmed a trial court judgment that terminated the father's parental rights to his child, J.K.C. After a bench trial the trial court found termination was in the child's best interest and that the Department of Family and Protective Services proved grounds under Texas Family Code section 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), and (N). Appellate counsel reviewed the record under Anders procedures and the court conducted an independent review, finding no non-frivolous issues to support reversal. The court also denied counsel's motion to withdraw, preserving the father's right to appointed counsel through further review.
Issues Decided
- Whether the Department proved statutory grounds for termination under Texas Family Code § 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), and (N).
- Whether terminating the father's parental rights was in the child's best interest.
- Whether appellate counsel properly followed Anders procedures and whether any non-frivolous issues exist for appeal.
Court's Reasoning
The appellate court independently reviewed the entire record and agreed the trial court's findings were supported: the Department proved the statutory grounds listed in the Family Code subsections cited, and the trial court's best-interest finding was supported by the evidence. Counsel had evaluated the record and identified no arguable grounds for reversal, and the court found no non-frivolous issues after its review. Because the record supported the termination findings and best-interest determination, the court affirmed.
Authorities Cited
- Texas Family Code § 161.001(b)(1) and (2)Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), (N), (2)
- Anders v. California386 U.S. 738 (1967)
- In re P.M.520 S.W.3d 24 (Tex. 2016)
Parties
- Appellant
- S.C. (Father)
- Respondent
- Department of Family and Protective Services
- Child
- J. K. C.
- Judge
- Gina M. Palafox, Justice
Key Dates
- Opinion date
- 2026-04-10
What You Should Do Next
- 1
Consider seeking discretionary review
If the father or counsel believes there is a basis, they may file a petition for review with the Texas Supreme Court within the applicable deadline; consult counsel about timing and grounds.
- 2
Consult appointed counsel
The father should continue to work with court-appointed counsel about any possible further appeals or motions, since counsel remains appointed through exhaustion or waiver of appeals.
- 3
Comply with conservatorship order
The Department has been appointed permanent managing conservator; parties should follow the trial court's custody and placement orders and any required reporting or contacts.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What did the court decide?
- The appeals court affirmed the trial court's termination of the father's parental rights, concluding the evidence supported statutory grounds and that termination was in the child's best interest.
- Who is affected by this decision?
- The decision permanently severs the parental legal relationship between the father (S.C.) and the child (J.K.C.) and places the Department as permanent managing conservator.
- What were the legal grounds for termination?
- The termination was based on findings under the Texas Family Code that included dangerous conditions or surroundings, endangering conduct, and constructive abandonment as proven by the Department.
- Can the father seek further review?
- Yes. The father retains the right to seek discretionary review (for example, a petition for review to the Texas Supreme Court), and appointed counsel remains available through exhaustion of appeals.
The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.
Full Filing Text
COURT OF APPEALS
EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
EL PASO, TEXAS
————————————
No. 08-25-00328-CV
————————————
In the Interest of J. K. C., a Child
On Appeal from the 143rd District Court
Ward County, Texas
Trial Court No. 24-11-26698-CVW
M E MO RA N D UM O PI NI O N
Appellant, S.C. (Father), appeals from the trial court’s judgment terminating his parental
rights to his child, J.K.C. After holding a bench trial, the trial court found that termination was in
the best interest of the child and that the Department of Family and Protective Services had proven
grounds for termination under subsections (D) (endangering conditions or surroundings); (E)
(endangering conduct); and (N) (constructive abandonment of the child), of § 161.001(b)(1) of the
Texas Family Code. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(b)(1)(D), (1)(E), (1)(N), (2). The trial
court further ordered the appointment of the Department as permanent managing conservator of
the child. Father filed a notice of appeal and the trial court appointed counsel to prosecute the
appeal on his behalf. 1
Father’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief asserting there are no non-
frivolous issues to assert on appeal, in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744
(1967). See In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 & n.10 (Tex. 2016) (per curiam) (recognizing that Anders
procedures apply in parental termination cases); In re J.B., 296 S.W.3d 618, 619 (Tex. App.—El
Paso 2009, no pet.) (same). The brief meets the Anders requirements by presenting a professional
evaluation of the record and demonstrating why no arguable grounds may be advanced on appeal.
See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744–45. Father’s counsel also provided a copy of the brief to Father,
informed Father of his right to file a pro se response, provided Father with a copy of the appellate
record, and informed Father of his right to seek discretionary review pro se should this Court find
this appeal frivolous. Father has not filed a pro se response, and the Department has not filed a
brief.
As a reviewing court, we must conduct our own independent review of the entire record to
determine whether arguable grounds exist for reversal of the parental termination order. See
Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988); In re C.A.S., No. 08-22-00027-CV, 2022 WL 1793919, at
*1 (Tex. App.—El Paso June 2, 2022, no pet.) (mem. op.). After our own thorough and independent
review of the entire record, including specifically reviewing the trial court’s findings under
subsections (D) and (E) and its best interest finding as well, we have found no arguable grounds
for reversal. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s order terminating Father’s parental rights.
Father’s counsel also filed a motion to withdraw. Because the longstanding right to court-
appointed counsel in parental termination cases extends through exhaustion or waiver of “all
1
The trial court also terminated the parent-child relationship between the mother and J.K.C. Mother is not a party to
this appeal.
2
appeals,” we deny the motion. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 107.016(2)(B); P.M., 520 S.W.3d at
27 (“[W]e hold that the right to counsel under Section 107.013(a)(1) through the exhaustion of
appeals under Section 107.016(2)(B) includes all proceedings in this Court, including the filing of
a petition for review.”).
For these reasons, we affirm the trial court’s judgment and deny counsel’s motion to
withdraw.
GINA M. PALAFOX, Justice
April 10, 2026
Before Salas Mendoza, C.J., Palafox and Soto, JJ.
3