Opinion
No. 02-20-00313-CV
02-11-2021
IN THE INTEREST OF P.C., A CHILD
On Appeal from the 233rd District Court Tarrant County, Texas
Trial Court No. 233-679053-20 Before Sudderth, C.J.; Birdwell and Wallach, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Father appeals from the trial court's judgment terminating his parental rights to his son Robert. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), (N), (O), (Q), (b)(2). 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 appellate counsel filed an Anders brief stating that he has concluded that there are no arguable grounds to support an appeal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967); In re K.M., 98 S.W.3d 774, 776-77 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2003, no pet.), 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 relief. Furthermore, in compliance with Kelly v. State, counsel provided Father with copies of the Anders brief, informed Father of his right to file a pro se response, advised Father of his right to review the appellate record and how to obtain a copy of it, 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.
Counsel also claimed to have given Father a copy of his "motion to withdraw as counsel," but no such motion appears in the record. --------
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 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 counsel that this appeal is without merit. We affirm the trial court's judgment terminating Father's parental rights to Robert. 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) (per curiam).
Per Curiam Delivered: February 11, 2021