in the Interest of C.E., a Child ( 2022 )

In the
Court of Appeals
Second Appellate District of Texas
at Fort Worth
___________________________
No. 02-22-00174-CV
___________________________
IN THE INTEREST OF C.E., A CHILD
On Appeal from the 233rd District Court
Tarrant County, Texas
Trial Court No. 233-703782-21
Before Birdwell, Womack, and Wallach, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Birdwell
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her child
C.E.1 See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(b)(1)(N), (O), (b)(2).
Mother’s appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief asserting that her appeal
is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744–45, 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 parental-rights termination cases). The brief
meets the Anders requirements by presenting a professional evaluation of the record
and demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced on appeal.
Mother was provided with the opportunity to obtain a copy of the appellate record
and to file a pro se response. Neither she nor the Department of Family and
Protective Services has filed a response.
When an Anders brief is filed, we must independently examine the appellate
record to determine if any arguable grounds for appeal exist. In re C.J., No. 02-18-
00219-CV, 2018 WL 4496240, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Sept. 20, 2018, no pet.)
(mem. op.); see also Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Mays
v. State, 904 S.W.2d 920, 922–23 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1995, no pet.). We also
consider the Anders brief itself and any pro se response. In re K.M., No. 02-18-00073-
CV, 2018 WL 3288591, at *10 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth July 5, 2018, pet. denied)
1
In a termination-of-parental-rights case, we use aliases or initials for the names
of the children and their parents. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 109.002(d); Tex. R. App.
P. 9.8(b)(2).
2
(mem. op.); see In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 408–09 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig.
proceeding).
We have carefully reviewed counsel’s brief and the appellate record. Finding
no reversible error, we agree with counsel that this appeal is without merit. See Bledsoe
v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); In re D.D., 279 S.W.3d 849, 850
(Tex. App.—Dallas 2009, pet. denied). Therefore, we affirm the trial court’s
judgment terminating Mother’s parental rights to C.E.2
/s/ Wade Birdwell
Wade Birdwell
Justice
Delivered: August 25, 2022
2
Although counsel filed a motion to withdraw, she remains appointed in this
appeal through proceedings in the supreme court unless she is otherwise relieved of
her duties for good cause in accordance with Family Code Section 107.016. See Tex.
Fam. Code Ann. § 107.016; In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 (Tex. 2016).
3