in the Interest of S.W., a Child

In the
Court of Appeals
Second Appellate District of Texas
at Fort Worth
___________________________
No. 02-21-00222-CV
___________________________
IN THE INTEREST OF S.W., A CHILD
On Appeal from the 97th District Court
Montague County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2019-0495M-CV
Before Sudderth, C.J.; Kerr and Walker, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Sudderth
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant S.W. (Father) appeals the trial court’s final order terminating his
parental rights to S.W. (Susie). Because we find no arguable grounds to be advanced
on appeal, we affirm the trial court’s termination order.
In December 2019, the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services
(Department) initiated this proceeding to terminate the parent–child relationship
between Father and C.H. (Mother) and their child, Susie. During the pendency of this
case, Mother passed away.
After conducting a final hearing, the trial court found that terminating Father’s
rights was in Susie’s best interest. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(b)(2). The trial
court also found grounds to terminate Father’s parental rights under Section
161.001(b)(1)(E); the trial court found that Father had engaged in conduct or
knowingly placed Susie with persons who had engaged in conduct that had
endangered Susie’s physical or emotional well-being. Father timely appealed from the
trial court’s termination order.
On August 23, 2021, Father’s appointed appellate counsel filed a brief stating
that he had conducted a professional evaluation of the record and had concluded that
there are no arguable grounds to support an appeal and that the appeal is frivolous.
Counsel’s brief presents the required professional evaluation of the record
demonstrating why there are no reversible grounds on appeal. See Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967); see also In re K.M., 98 S.W.3d 774, 776–
2
77 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2003, order) (holding Anders procedures apply in
parental-termination cases), disp. on merits, 2003 WL 2006583, at *1–3 (Tex. App.—
Fort Worth May 1, 2003, no pet.) (mem. op.). Further, counsel provided Father with
a copy of the reporter’s and clerk’s records in this case and informed Father of his
right to file a pro se response. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 318–20 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2014). Father declined to file a response. The Department notified us that it
would not be filing a brief.
In reviewing a brief that asserts an appeal is frivolous and that fulfills the
requirements of Anders, this court 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) (citing Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503,
511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991)). Having carefully reviewed the record and the Anders
brief, we conclude that there are no arguable grounds that might support Father’s
appeal; thus we agree with counsel that Father’s appeal is frivolous. See In re D.D., 279
S.W.3d 849, 850 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2009, pet. denied). We affirm the trial court’s
termination order. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(a).
Father’s counsel did not file a motion to withdraw, and the record does not
show good cause for withdrawal independent from counsel’s conclusion that the
appeal is frivolous. See In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27–28 (Tex. 2016) (order); In re C.J.,
501 S.W.3d at 255. Accordingly, Father’s counsel remains appointed in this appeal
through proceedings in the supreme court unless otherwise relieved from his duties
3
for good cause in accordance with Family Code Section 107.016(2)(C). See P.M., 520
S.W.3d at 27–28; see also Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 107.016(2)(C).
/s/ Bonnie Sudderth
Bonnie Sudderth
Chief Justice
Delivered: November 4, 2021
4