In re I.M.G.

Full title: IN THE INTEREST OF I.M.G. AND M.L.G., CHILDREN

Court: COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH

Date published: Mar 6, 2014

NO. 02-13-00371-CV (Tex. App. Mar. 6, 2014)

Opinion

NO. 02-13-00371-CV

03-06-2014

IN THE INTEREST OF I.M.G. AND M.L.G., CHILDREN

PER CURIAM

FROM THE 323RD DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

MEMORANDUM OPINION¹

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.

Appellant G.L.G., Jr. (Father) appeals from the trial court's order terminating his parental rights to his daughters I.M.G. and M.L.G. After a bench trial, the trial court found by clear and convincing evidence that Father had • knowingly placed or knowingly allowed the children to remain in conditions or surroundings which endangered their physical or emotional well-being; • engaged in conduct or knowingly placed the children with persons who engaged in conduct which endangered the children's physical or emotional well-being; • failed to comply with the provisions of a court order that specifically established the actions necessary for him to obtain the return of the children, who had been in the permanent or temporary managing conservatorship of the Department of Family and Protective Services (TDFPS) for not less than nine months as a result of their removal from the parents under Chapter 262 for abuse or neglect; and • constructively abandoned the children, who had been in the permanent or temporary managing conservatorship of TDFPS for not less than six months and: (1) TDFPS made reasonable efforts to return the children to Father; (2) he did not regularly visit or maintain significant contact with the children; and (3) he demonstrated an inability to provide the children with a safe environment.² The trial court also found that termination of the parent-child relationship would be in the children's best interests.³

2 See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(1)(D)-(E), (N)-(O) (West Supp. 2013).

3 See id. § 161.001(2).

Father's court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and an Anders brief in support, stating that after diligently reviewing the record, he believes that any appeal by Father would be frivolous.⁴ Father's appointed appellate counsel's brief meets the requirements of Anders by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds of error to be advanced on appeal.⁵ Although given the opportunity, neither Father nor TDPFS filed a response to the Anders brief.

4 See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967).

5 See In re D.D., 279 S.W.3d 849, 850 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2009, pet. denied).

As the reviewing appellate court, we must conduct an independent evaluation of the record to decide whether counsel is correct in determining that Father's appeal is frivolous.⁶ Having carefully reviewed the record and the Anders brief, we agree with Father's appellate counsel that his appeal is frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the record that arguably might support the appeal.⁷

6 See id.; see also Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).

7 See D.D., 279 S.W.3d at 850; see also Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).
--------

Accordingly, we grant Father's appellate counsel's motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court's judgment.

PER CURIAM PANEL: DAUPHINOT, J.; LIVINGSTON, C.J.; and GARDNER, J.