in the Interest of A.H., a Child ( 2015 )

COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
NO. 02-15-00261-CV
IN THE INTEREST OF A.H., A
CHILD
----------
FROM THE 323RD DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY
TRIAL COURT NO. 323-101079-14
----------
MEMORANDUM OPINION 1
----------
Appellant D.H. (Mother) appeals from the trial court’s judgment terminating
her parent-child relationship with son A.H. After a bench trial, the trial court
found by clear and convincing evidence that Mother had
• knowingly placed or knowingly allowed A.H. to remain in conditions or
surroundings which endangered his physical or emotional well-being;
1
See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
• engaged in conduct or knowingly placed A.H. with persons who had
engaged in conduct which endangered his physical or emotional well-
being; and
• constructively abandoned A.H., who had been in the permanent or
temporary managing conservatorship of the Texas Department of Family
and Protective Services (TDFPS) for not less than six months and
(1) TDFPS made reasonable efforts to return A.H. to Mother; (2) Mother
did not regularly visit or maintain significant contact with A.H.; and (3)
Mother demonstrated an inability to provide A.H. with a safe environment. 2
The trial court also found that termination of the parent-child relationship
would be in A.H.’s best interest. 3
Mother’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw
and an Anders brief in support, stating that after diligently reviewing the record,
he believes that any appeal by Mother would be frivolous. 4 Mother’s appointed
appellate counsel’s brief meets the requirements of Anders by presenting a
professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating why there are no
arguable grounds of error to be advanced on appeal. 5 Although given the
opportunity, neither Mother nor TDFPS filed a response to the Anders brief.
2
See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(b)(1)(D)–(E), (N) (West Supp. 2015).
3
See id. § 161.001(b)(2).
4
See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967); see also In
re K.M., 98 S.W.3d 774, 776–77 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2003, no pet.) (holding
Anders procedures apply in parental termination cases).
5
See In re D.D., 279 S.W.3d 849, 850 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2009, pet.
denied).
2
As the reviewing appellate court, we must conduct an independent
evaluation of the record to decide whether counsel is correct in determining that
Mother’s appeal is frivolous. 6 Having carefully reviewed the record and the
Anders brief, we agree with Mother’s appellate counsel that her appeal is
frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the record that arguably might
support the appeal. 7
Accordingly, we grant Mother’s appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw and
affirm the trial court’s judgment.
PER CURIAM
PANEL: DAUPHINOT, MEIER, and GABRIEL, JJ.
DELIVERED: November 19, 2015
6
See id.; see also Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App.
1991).
7
See D.D., 279 S.W.3d at 850; see also Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824,
826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).
3