in the Interest of Z.G., a Child ( 2023 )

In the
Court of Appeals
Second Appellate District of Texas
at Fort Worth
___________________________
No. 02-22-00367-CV
___________________________
IN THE INTEREST OF Z.G., A CHILD
On Appeal from the 322nd District Court
Tarrant County, Texas
Trial Court No. 322-706389-21
Before Womack, Wallach, and Walker, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Walker
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Mother appeals from the trial court’s judgment terminating her
parental rights to her child, Z.G.,1 on the grounds that she had endangered Z.G.,
constructively abandoned Z.G., and failed to comply with her court-ordered service
plan, and that termination was in Z.G.’s best interest.2 See Tex. Fam. Code Ann.
§ 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), (N), (O), (b)(2). We affirm.
Mother’s appointed appellate counsel filed an Anders brief stating that there are
no arguable grounds for appeal3 and also filed a motion to withdraw as Mother’s
attorney of record. 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 a copy of the Anders
brief, (2) informed Mother of her rights to file a pro se response and to seek
1
We use initials to refer to the child. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 109.002(d);
Tex. R. App. P. 9.8(b)(2).
The child’s father also had his parental rights terminated but did not appeal the
2
judgment.
3
Mother’s counsel purported to present one “arguable” ground for appeal but
concluded that it failed on its merits. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744 (holding that legal
point “arguable on [its] merits” is not frivolous).
2
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
(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 filed by
Mother’s attorney because it does not show good cause for withdrawal. See In re P.M.,
520 S.W.3d 24, 27 (Tex. 2016) (order); 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 P.M., 520 S.W.3d at 27.
/s/ Brian Walker
Brian Walker
Justice
Delivered: January 26, 2023
3