Opinion
NO. 02-16-00426-CV
04-13-2017
IN THE INTEREST OF Z.N., N.D., AND J.N., CHILDREN
FROM THE 158TH DISTRICT COURT OF DENTON COUNTY
TRIAL COURT NO. 15-06829-158 MEMORANDUM OPINION
See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
Appellant L.N. (Mother) appeals the trial court's judgment terminating her parental rights to her children Z.N., N.D., and J.N. We affirm.
After a bench trial in which Mother was represented by counsel, the trial court found that she had knowingly placed or allowed the children to remain in conditions or surroundings that endangered their physical or emotional well-being, had engaged in conduct or knowingly placed the children with persons who engaged in conduct that endangered their physical or emotional well-being, and had failed to comply with provisions of a court order that established actions necessary for her to obtain the children's return. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), (O) (West Supp. 2016). The trial court also found that termination of Mother's parental rights was in the children's best interest. See id. § 161.001(b)(2). Mother filed a notice of appeal, and the trial court appointed new counsel to represent her on appeal.
The trial court terminated the children's alleged father's parental rights on the basis of an affidavit of relinquishment. He has not appealed.
Mother's appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California in which counsel avers that Mother's appeal is frivolous. See 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 termination cases). The brief meets the requirements of Anders by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced on appeal. Counsel also sent Mother a letter that informed her of several matters, including her right to file a response to the Anders brief. Although given the opportunity, Mother has not responded to counsel's Anders brief. The State has not filed a brief.
As the reviewing court, we must independently examine the record to decide whether the appeal 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 that the appeal is frivolous; we find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); K.R.C., 346 S.W.3d at 619. Therefore, we affirm the trial court's order terminating Mother's parental rights to the children.
Mother's counsel has filed a motion to withdraw. We deny counsel's motion because we conclude that it does not show "good cause" for the withdrawal. See In re P.M., No. 15-0171, 2016 WL 1274748, at *3 (Tex. Apr. 1, 2016); In re C.J., 501 S.W.3d 254, 255 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2016, pets. denied); see also In re A.M., 495 S.W.3d 573, 582 n.2 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2016, pets. denied) (noting that since 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., 2016 WL 1274748, at *3.
Appellate counsel's request to withdraw because of Mother's failure to communicate with counsel does not affect our conclusion that the appeal is frivolous.
/s/ Terrie Livingston
TERRIE LIVINGSTON
CHIEF JUSTICE PANEL: LIVINGSTON, C.J.; GABRIEL and SUDDERTH, JJ. DELIVERED: April 13, 2017