in the Interest of D.J. and D.J., Children ( 2017 )

COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
NO. 02-17-00088-CV
IN THE INTEREST OF D.J. AND
D.J., CHILDREN
----------
FROM THE 323RD DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY
TRIAL COURT NO. 323-103126-16
----------
MEMORANDUM OPINION1
----------
Appellant D.E.J. (Father) appeals the trial court’s order terminating his
parental rights to his children, D.J. and D.J. After a bench trial in which Father
was represented by counsel, the trial court found that he had knowingly placed or
allowed the children to remain in conditions or surroundings that endangered
their physical or emotional well-being, had engaged in conduct or knowingly
placed the children with persons who engaged in conduct that endangered their
physical or emotional well-being, and had constructively abandoned the children.
1
See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), (N) (West Supp. 2016). The
trial court also found that termination of Father’s parental rights was in the
children’s best interest. See id. § 161.001(b)(2).
Father’s appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief under Anders v.
California in which counsel avers that Father’s appeal is frivolous and without
merit. See 386 U.S. 738, 744–45, 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 parental termination cases). The brief meets the
requirements of Anders by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and
demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced on appeal.
Counsel also sent Father a letter that informed him of several matters, including
his right to file a response to the Anders brief. Although given the opportunity,
Father has not responded to counsel’s Anders brief. The State has not filed a
brief.
As the reviewing court, we must independently examine the record to
decide whether the appeal is frivolous. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503,
511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); In re K.R.C., 346 S.W.3d 618, 619 (Tex. App.—
El Paso 2009, no pet.). Having carefully reviewed the record and the Anders
brief, we agree that the appeal is frivolous. We find nothing in the record that
might arguably support Father’s appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824,
827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Therefore, we affirm the trial court’s order
terminating the parent-child relationship between Father and the children. But
2
we deny counsel’s motion to withdraw because he does not show “good cause”
separate and apart from his accurate determination that there are no arguable
grounds for appeal. See In re P.M., No. 15-0171, 2016 WL 1274748, at *3 (Tex.
Apr. 1, 2016) (holding that the right to counsel under family code section
107.013(a)(1) extends to proceedings in the supreme court and that in the
absence of additional grounds for withdrawal, an Anders motion to withdraw
brought in the court of appeals may be premature); In re C.J., 501 S.W.3d 254,
255 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2016, pets. denied).
/s/ Bill Meier
BILL MEIER
JUSTICE
PANEL: MEIER, SUDDERTH, and KERR, JJ.
DELIVERED: August 3, 2017
3