Opinion
02-21-00329-CV
02-10-2022
In the Interest of A.P., a Child
On Appeal from the 231st District Court Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 231-691938-20
Before Birdwell, Womack, and Wallach, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Wade Birdwell Justice.
Mother appeals from the trial court's judgment terminating her parental rights to her child on the grounds that Mother endangered the child and failed to comply with her court-ordered service plan. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), (O), (b)(2). We affirm.
Father also had his parental rights terminated but did not appeal the judgment.
Mother's appointed appellate counsel filed a motion to withdraw and an Anders brief stating that there are no arguable grounds for 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, 776-77 (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 copies of the motion to withdraw and 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 and provided to her a form motion for effectuating that purpose. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Mother did not file a response and the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services declined to file a brief.
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 because Mother's counsel did not show good cause other than counsel's determination that an appeal would be frivolous. See In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27-28 (Tex. 2016); 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 In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d at 27.