in the Interest of A.P., a Child ( 2022 )

In the
Court of Appeals
Second Appellate District of Texas
at Fort Worth
___________________________
No. 02-21-00329-CV
___________________________
IN THE INTEREST OF A.P., A CHILD
On Appeal from the 231st District Court
Tarrant County, Texas
Trial Court No. 231-691938-20
Before Birdwell, Womack, and Wallach, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Birdwell
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Mother appeals from the trial court’s judgment terminating her parental rights
to her child on the grounds that Mother endangered the child and failed to comply
with her court-ordered service plan.1 See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(b)(1)(D),
(E), (O), (b)(2). We affirm.
Mother’s appointed appellate counsel filed a motion to withdraw and an Anders
brief stating that there are no arguable grounds for appeal. See Anders v. California, 386
U.S. 738, 744, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967); see also In re K.M., 98 S.W.3d 774, 776–77
(Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2003, no pet.) (holding that Anders procedures apply in cases
terminating parental rights). The brief meets the Anders requirements by presenting a
professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating why there are no arguable
grounds to be advanced on appeal. Further, Mother’s counsel (1) provided Mother
with copies of the motion to withdraw and the Anders brief, (2) informed Mother of
her rights to file a pro se response and to seek discretionary review from the supreme
court, and (3) advised Mother of her right to access the appellate record and provided
to her a form motion for effectuating that purpose. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313,
319–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Mother did not file a response and the Texas
Department of Family and Protective Services declined to file a brief.
When an Anders brief is filed, we must independently examine the record to
determine if any arguable grounds for appeal exist. In re C.J., 501 S.W.3d 254, 255
1
Father also had his parental rights terminated but did not appeal the judgment.
2
(Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2016, pets. denied). Our examination should consider the
record, the briefs, and any pro se response. In re L.B., No. 02-19-00407-CV, 2020 WL
1809505, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Apr. 9, 2020, no pet.) (mem. op.).
After careful review, we agree with Mother’s counsel that there are no arguable
grounds for appeal in this case. We affirm the trial court’s judgment terminating
Mother’s parental rights. However, we deny the motion to withdraw because
Mother’s counsel did not show good cause other than counsel’s determination that an
appeal would be frivolous. See In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27–28 (Tex. 2016); C.J., 501
S.W.3d at 255. Thus, Mother’s counsel remains appointed in this case through any
proceedings in the supreme court unless otherwise relieved of these duties. See In re
P.M., 520 S.W.3d at 27.
/s/ Wade Birdwell
Wade Birdwell
Justice
Delivered: February 10, 2022
3