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

In the
Court of Appeals
Second Appellate District of Texas
at Fort Worth
___________________________
No. 02-22-00162-CV
___________________________
IN THE INTEREST OF A.R., A CHILD
On Appeal from the 325th District Court
Tarrant County, Texas
Trial Court No. 325-703446-21
Before Sudderth, C.J.; Kerr and Walker, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Walker
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellants Mother and Father both appeal from the trial court’s judgment
terminating their parental rights to their child, A.R.1 See Tex. Fam. Code Ann.
§§ 161.001(b), 161.206. Because we find no arguable grounds for reversal, we affirm
the trial court’s final order of termination.
The attorneys for Mother and Father have each filed an Anders brief stating that
they have conducted a professional evaluation of the record and have concluded that
there are no arguable grounds to be advanced to support an appeal of the trial court’s
termination order and that the appeal is frivolous. 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). Father’s attorney also filed a motion to withdraw as his
attorney of record.
The briefs meet the Anders requirements by presenting professional evaluations
of the record and by demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be
advanced on appeal for either parent. Additionally, both Mother and Father have
been (1) provided with a copy of the brief filed by their respective attorneys,
(2) informed of their rights to file a pro se response and to seek discretionary review
from the supreme court, and (3) advised of their rights to access the appellate record.
We use initials to refer to the child. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 109.002(d);
1
Tex. R. App. P. 9.8(b)(2).
2
See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Mother and Father
did not respond, and the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services has
indicated that it does not intend to file a response to either Anders 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.).
Having carefully and independently reviewed the entire record and the Anders
briefs, we conclude that there are no arguable grounds supporting the appeals; thus,
we agree with the attorneys for Mother and Father that their appeals are without
merit. See C.J., 501 S.W.3d at 255. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s final order
of termination. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(a). However, we deny the motion to
withdraw filed by Father’s attorney because it did not show good cause for
withdrawal. See In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27–28 (Tex. 2016); In re C.J., 501 S.W.3d at
255. Thus, counsels for both Mother and Father remain 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/ Brian Walker
Brian Walker
Justice
Delivered: October 20, 2022
3