in the Interest of L.C., a Child ( 2019 )

In the
Court of Appeals
Second Appellate District of Texas
at Fort Worth
___________________________
No. 02-19-00130-CV
___________________________
IN THE INTEREST OF L.C., A CHILD
On Appeal from the 325th District Court
Tarrant County, Texas
Trial Court No. 325-601094-16
Before Sudderth, C.J.; Kerr and Birdwell, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Sudderth
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his child, L.C.
See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001. Father’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. Father 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 C.J.,
501 S.W.3d 254, 255 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2016, pet. denied). Having carefully
reviewed the record, the Anders brief, and Father’s pro se response, we agree with
counsel that the appeal is frivolous. See C.J., 501 S.W.3d at 255. We find nothing in
the record that might arguably support Father’s appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the
trial court’s order.
We deny Father’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
2
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, 582–83 & n.2 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st
Dist.] 2016, pet. 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: August 22, 2019
3