in the Interest of J.B., J.B., K.B., and K.B., Children

In the
Court of Appeals
Second Appellate District of Texas
at Fort Worth
___________________________
No. 02-18-00214-CV
___________________________
IN THE INTEREST OF J.B., J.B., K.B., AND K.B., CHILDREN
On Appeal from the 324th District Court
Tarrant County, Texas
Trial Court No. 324-498489-11
Before Sudderth, C.J.; Gabriel and Birdwell, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Sudderth
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Mother I.P. appeals the termination of her parental rights to her four
children, J.B., J.B., K.B., and K.B. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001 (West Supp.
2018). 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 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. Although given the opportunity, Mother has
not filed 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
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 order.
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: October 18, 2018
3