in the Interest of C.T., D.T., J.T., and J.T., Children ( 2019 )

In the
Court of Appeals
Second Appellate District of Texas
at Fort Worth
___________________________
No. 02-18-00383-CV
___________________________
IN THE INTEREST OF C.T., D.T., J.T., AND J.T., CHILDREN
On Appeal from the 323rd District Court
Tarrant County, Texas
Trial Court No. 323-105839-17
Before Sudderth, C.J.; Gabriel and Womack, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Sudderth
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her children,
C.T., D.T., J.T., and J.T. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001. Mother’s court-
appointed appellate counsel filed a motion to withdraw as counsel and a brief in
support of that motion. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967);
In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 (Tex. 2016). Counsel’s brief and motion meet the
requirements of Anders v. California by presenting a professional evaluation of the
record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for relief. See 386 U.S. at
741–42, 87 S. Ct. at 1399. Further, counsel informed Mother of her right to request
the record and to file a pro se response. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–21
(Tex. Crim. App. 2014). In addition, this court informed Mother of these rights and
gave her the opportunity to notify this court of her intent to respond. Mother filed a
pro se response. The Department of Family and Protective Services did not file a
response.
As the reviewing appellate court, we must independently examine the record to
decide whether counsel is correct in determining that an appeal in this case 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 with counsel that the appeal is
frivolous. See K.R.C., 346 S.W.3d at 619. We find nothing in the record that might
arguably support Mother’s appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s order.
2
We deny Mother’s counsel’s motion to withdraw in light of P.M. because the
brief does not show “good cause” other than counsel’s determination that an appeal
would be frivolous. See 520 S.W.3d at 27 (“[A]n Anders motion to withdraw brought
in the court of appeals, in the absence of additional grounds for withdrawal, may be
premature.”); In re A.M., 495 S.W.3d 573, 582 n.2 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.]
2016, pets. denied) (noting that since P.M. was handed down, “most courts of appeals
affirming parental termination orders after receiving Anders briefs have denied the
attorney’s motion to withdraw”). The supreme court has held that in cases such as
this, “appointed counsel’s obligations [in the supreme court] can be satisfied by filing
a petition for review that satisfies the standards for an Anders brief.” P.M., 520
S.W.3d at 27–28.
/s/ Bonnie Sudderth
Bonnie Sudderth
Chief Justice
Delivered: March 7, 2019
3