in the Interest of F.S. and H.R., Children ( 2020 )

In the
Court of Appeals
Second Appellate District of Texas
at Fort Worth
___________________________
No. 02-19-00349-CV
___________________________
IN THE INTEREST OF F.S. AND H.R., CHILDREN
On Appeal from the 393rd District Court
Denton County, Texas
Trial Court No. 18-2535-393
Before Sudderth, C.J.; Bassel and Womack, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Sudderth
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Mother M.R. appeals the termination of her parental rights to her
children, H.R. and F.S. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001. Mother’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 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. Mother filed a response, but she did not demonstrate any
arguable grounds for relief.
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
K.R.C., 346 S.W.3d 618, 619 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2009, no pet.). Having carefully
reviewed the record and the Anders brief, we agree with counsel that the appeal is
frivolous. See K.R.C., 346 S.W.3d at 619. We find nothing in the record that might
arguably support Mother’s appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
We deny Mother’s counsel’s motion to withdraw in light of In re P.M. because
the brief does not show “good cause” other than counsel’s determination that an
appeal would be frivolous. 520 S.W.3d at 27 (“[A]n Anders motion to withdraw
brought in the court of appeals, in the absence of additional grounds for withdrawal,
2
may be premature.”); In re A.M., 495 S.W.3d 573, 582–83 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st
Dist.] 2016, pet. denied) (noting that since In re 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: January 23, 2020
3