Opinion
02-23-00062-CV
07-27-2023
In the Interest of C.C., A.D., &A.D., Children
On Appeal from the 393rd District Court Denton County, Texas Trial Court No. 21-4852-393
Before Sudderth, C.J.; Kerr and Walker, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Brian Walker Justice
Appellant Mother appeals from the trial court's judgment terminating her parental rights to her children, C.C., A.D., and A.D., on the grounds that she endangered the children and failed to comply with her court-ordered service plan, and finding that termination was in the children's best interest. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), (O), (b)(2). We affirm.
We use initials to refer to the children. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 109.002(d); Tex.R.App.P. 9.8(b)(2).
Mother's appointed appellate counsel filed an Anders brief stating that there are no arguable grounds for appeal and also filed a motion to withdraw as Mother's attorney of record. 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, 776-77 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2003, no pet.) (holding that Anders procedures apply in cases terminating parental rights).
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. Further, Mother's counsel (1) provided Mother with a copy of the Anders brief, (2) informed Mother of her rights to file a pro se response and to seek discretionary review from the supreme court, and (3) advised Mother of her right to access the appellate record from our court and offered to provide her with a free copy of the record upon written request. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).
In a June 2, 2023 letter to our court, Mother indicated that she intended to file a response. So, on June 5, 2023, our clerk mailed a letter to her-at her last known address-which included copies of the appellate record and her attorney's Anders brief. Given the accelerated nature of the proceedings, we informed Mother that her response was due on June 26, 2023, and that the Department of Family and Protective Services' reply would be due twenty days after that. Mother did not file a response, and the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services declined to file a brief.
On June 22, 2023, this letter was returned to our clerk with the note "Return to Sender - Insufficient Address - Unable to Forward - Return to Sender." Our clerk immediately contacted Mother's attorney to verify Mother's address. Her attorney confirmed that the address on file with our court was also the last known address that they had on file for Mother.
When an Anders brief is filed, we must independently examine the record to determine if any arguable grounds for appeal exist. In re C.J., 501 S.W.3d 254, 255 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2016, pets. denied). Our examination should consider the record, the briefs, and any pro se response. In re L.B., No. 02-19-00407-CV, 2020 WL 1809505, at *1 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth Apr. 9, 2020, no pet.) (mem. op.).
After careful review, we agree with Mother's counsel that there are no arguable grounds for appeal in this case. We affirm the trial court's judgment terminating Mother's parental rights. However, we deny the motion to withdraw filed by Mother's attorney because it does not show good cause for withdrawal. See In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 (Tex. 2016) (order); C.J., 501 S.W.3d at 255. Thus, Mother's counsel remains appointed in this case through any proceedings in the supreme court unless otherwise relieved of these duties. See P.M., 520 S.W.3d at 27.