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

In the
Court of Appeals
Second Appellate District of Texas
at Fort Worth
___________________________
No. 02-21-00386-CV
___________________________
IN THE INTEREST OF H.R., A CHILD
On Appeal from the 271st District Court
Wise County, Texas
Trial Court No. CV19-12-1028
Before Birdwell, Wallach, and Walker, JJ.
Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his child H.R.1 See Tex.
Fam. Code Ann. §§ 161.001(b)(1)(E), (O), (2), .003. We affirm.
Father’s counsel filed an Anders brief stating that the appeal is frivolous and
without merit. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967); In re K.M., 98 S.W.3d
774, 776–77 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2003, order), disp. on merits, No. 2-01-349-CV,
2003 WL 2006583 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth May 1, 2003, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem.
op.). Counsel’s brief presents the required professional evaluation of the record
demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for appeal. Furthermore, in
compliance with Kelly v. State, counsel provided Father with a copy of the Anders brief,
informed Father of his right to file a pro se response, gave Father a copy of the appellate
record, and told Father of his right to pursue discretionary review in the Texas Supreme
Court. 436 S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Father did not file a response.
In the Anders context, we must independently examine the record to determine
if any arguable grounds for appeal exist. See In re C.J., 501 S.W.3d 254, 255 (Tex. App.—
Fort Worth 2016, pets. denied). When performing this analysis, we consider the record,
the Anders brief, and any pro se response. In re P.C., No. 02-20-00313-CV, 2021 WL
520585, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Feb. 11, 2021, pet. denied) (per curiam) (mem.
op.).
We use aliases to protect the child’s identity. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann.
1
§ 109.002(d); Tex. R. App. P. 9.8(b)(2).
2
After careful review, we agree with counsel that this appeal is without merit. We
affirm the judgment terminating Father’s parental rights to H.R. Counsel remains
appointed through proceedings in the supreme court unless otherwise relieved. See In re
P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 (Tex. 2016) (order).
Per Curiam
Delivered: May 19, 2022
3