Opinion
02-21-00386-CV
05-19-2022
In the Interest of H.R., a Child
On Appeal from the 271st District Court Wise County, Texas Trial Court No. CV19-12-1028
Before Birdwell, Wallach, and Walker, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM
Father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his child H.R. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. §§ 161.001(b)(1)(E), (O), (2), .003. We affirm.
We use aliases to protect the child's identity. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 109.002(d); Tex.R.App.P. 9.8(b)(2).
Father's counsel filed an Anders brief stating that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967); In re K.M., 98 S.W.3d 774, 776-77 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2003, order), disp. on merits, No. 2-01-349-CV, 2003 WL 2006583 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth May 1, 2003, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op.). Counsel's brief presents the required professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for appeal. Furthermore, in compliance with Kelly v. State, counsel provided Father with a copy of the Anders brief, informed Father of his right to file a pro se response, gave Father a copy of the appellate record, and told Father of his right to pursue discretionary review in the Texas Supreme Court. 436 S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Father did not file a response.
In the Anders context, we 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). When performing this analysis, we consider the record, the Anders brief, and any pro se response. In re P.C., No. 02-20-00313-CV, 2021 WL 520585, at *1 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth Feb. 11, 2021, pet. denied) (per curiam) (mem. op.).
After careful review, we agree with counsel that this appeal is without merit. We affirm the judgment terminating Father's parental rights to H.R. Counsel remains appointed through proceedings in the supreme court unless otherwise relieved. See In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 (Tex. 2016) (order).