# In re A.B.

Supreme Court of Texas, No. 25-0474

**In re A.B., No. 25-0474, is before the Supreme Court of Texas. Key issue: Justice Young (joined by Justices Sullivan and Hawkins) concurred in denying a mother's petition for review because her appointed counsel's petition both argued ineffective assistance and stated that appellate counsel saw no non-frivolous issues, an Anders-style concession that the State seized on and counsel never answered.**

Practice areas: family law, legal ethics

## Key issues

- Justice Young (joined by Justices Sullivan and Hawkins) concurred in denying a mother's petition for review because her appointed counsel's petition both argued ineffective assistance and stated that appellate counsel saw no non-frivolous issues, an Anders-style concession that the State seized on and counsel never answered.
- He noted counsel ignored the Court's February 27, 2026 order to clarify whether he was proceeding under Anders, and said counsel's conduct raises the possibility of professional discipline, though the loss of the mother's parental rights should "haunt" him more.

## Factual History
Mother's parental rights to her child were terminated; her appointed appellate counsel filed a petition for review in this Court asserting ineffective assistance of trial counsel and asking for a new trial, but a page earlier stating counsel "does not have any basis for concluding this Court would find error" and moving for withdrawal (Young, J., concurring, PDF pp. 1-3).

## Procedural History
The Second Court of Appeals decided the underlying appeal. The State quoted counsel's concession in its response and Mother's counsel filed no reply; the Court ordered counsel on February 27, 2026 to file a letter by March 9 clarifying whether he was proceeding under Anders, and counsel filed nothing. The Court denied the petition June 5, 2026 (Young, J., concurring, PDF pp. 2-4).

## Issues Presented
Whether the petition presented a non-frivolous issue given counsel's own statement that no reversible error existed (Young, J., concurring, PDF pp. 2-3).

## Legal Arguments
Counsel argued Mother's due-process rights were violated by ineffective assistance of trial counsel; the State relied on counsel's concession (Young, J., concurring, PDF pp. 1-2).

## Stated Reasons the Court Should Take the Case
Not applicable—the petition was denied.

## Practice Area Tags
family-law, legal-ethics

## Procedural Posture/Vehicle
Petition for review from the Second Court of Appeals, denied, with a concurring opinion (Young, J., concurring, PDF p. 1). On October 2, 2026 the Court denied rehearing, stating that counsel had explained the portion of the petition invoking Anders v. California was included in error and that, with that clarification, the Court reexamined the petition's merits (Orders, Oct. 2, 2026).
## Amicus Involvement
None noted

## Court's Reasoning
Parents in termination cases receive free counsel and may raise ineffective assistance on appeal, so genuine ineffectiveness should be rare, which makes this petition "astounding" (PDF pp. 1-2). The Anders language looks accidentally left in from another case's petition (it uses the feminine pronoun though counsel is a man), but either way counsel did not proofread, read the State's response, or answer the Court's order; all courts have inherent power to discipline attorneys, and this Court regulates the practice of law (PDF pp. 3-4).

## Disposition
Petition for review denied.

## Vote Breakdown
Justice Young concurred in the denial, joined by Justices Sullivan and Hawkins (Young, J., concurring, PDF p. 1).

---
Source: The SCOTX Report, https://scotxreport.com/cases/25-0474. AI-generated summary of the Court's opinion, orders and the parties' briefs, with pin cites to the page of each document; verify against the Court's own documents at search.txcourts.gov.