in the Interest of M.S.M., a Child ( 2012 )

COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
NO. 02-12-00280-CV
In the Interest of M.S.M., A Child § From the 323rd District Court
§ of Tarrant County (323-95192J-11)
§ December 13, 2012
§ Opinion by Justice Meier
JUDGMENT
This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that
there was no error in the trial court’s order. It is ordered that the judgment of the
trial court is affirmed.
SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
By_________________________________
Justice Bill Meier
COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
NO. 02-12-00280-CV
IN THE INTEREST OF M.S.M., A
CHILD
----------
FROM THE 323RD DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY
----------
MEMORANDUM OPINION1
----------
Appellant H.M. appeals the trial court’s order terminating her parental
rights to M.S.M.2 The trial court found that H.M. knowingly placed or knowingly
allowed M.S.M. to remain in conditions or surroundings which endangered
M.S.M.’s physical or emotional well-being, and engaged in conduct or knowingly
placed M.S.M. with persons who engaged in conduct which endangered
1
See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2
The trial court also terminated the parental rights of M.S.M.’s alleged
biological father, but he did not appeal the trial court’s judgment.
2
M.S.M.’s physical or emotional well-being. The trial court further found that
termination of H.M.’s parental rights is in M.S.M.’s best interest. We will affirm.
H.M.’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw as
counsel and a brief in support of that motion. In her motion, counsel avers that
she has conducted a professional evaluation of the record and, after a thorough
review of the applicable law, has reached the conclusion that there are no
arguable grounds to be advanced to support an appeal of this cause and that the
appeal is frivolous. H.M. was given the opportunity to file a pro se brief on her
own behalf, but she did not do so.
Counsel’s brief and motion meet the requirements of Anders by presenting
a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no reversible
grounds on appeal and referencing any grounds that might arguably support the
appeal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 741, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1398
(1967); Mays v. State, 904 S.W.2d 920, 922–23 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1995, no
pet.). This court has previously held that Anders procedures apply in parental
rights termination cases. In re K.M., 98 S.W.3d 774, 776–77 (Tex. App.—Fort
Worth 2003, no pet.).
In our duties as a reviewing court, we must conduct an independent
evaluation of the record to determine whether counsel is correct in determining
that the appeal is frivolous. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex.
Crim. App. 1991); Mays, 904 S.W.2d at 923. Only then may we grant counsel’s
3
motion to withdraw. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82–83, 109 S. Ct. 346,
351 (1988).
We have carefully reviewed the appellate record and H.M.’s appellate
counsel’s brief. We agree with her appellate counsel that the appeal is wholly
frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably
support the appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827 (Tex. Crim. App.
2005). Therefore, we grant H.M.’s appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw and
affirm the trial court’s order terminating H.M.’s parental rights to M.S.M.
BILL MEIER
JUSTICE
PANEL: LIVINGSTON, C.J.; MEIER and GABRIEL, JJ.
DELIVERED: December 13, 2012
4