Opinion
No. 02-20-00389-CV
03-04-2021
IN THE INTEREST OF S.P., K.P., AND A.W., CHILDREN
On Appeal from the 231st District Court Tarrant County, Texas
Trial Court No. 231-684596-20 Before Sudderth, C.J.; Birdwell and Bassel, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Father W.P. appeals the trial court's order appointing the Department of Family and Protective Services as managing conservator and him as a possessory conservator of his two children, S.P. and K.P., with supervised-visitation rights. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001. Father's court-appointed appellate counsel filed a brief seeking permission to withdraw. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967); In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 (Tex. 2016). Counsel's brief meets the requirements of Anders by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for relief. See 386 U.S. at 741-42, 87 S. Ct. at 1399. Father did not file a response.
Child A.W. was subject to the same suit in the trial court below but is not related to Father and Father's appeal does not relate to A.W. --------
As the reviewing appellate court, we must independently examine the record to decide whether counsel is correct in determining that an appeal in this case 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 with counsel that the appeal is frivolous. See K.R.C., 346 S.W.3d at 619. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support Father's appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.
We deny Father's counsel's motion to withdraw in light of P.M. because the brief does not show "good cause" other than counsel's determination that an appeal would be frivolous. 520 S.W.3d at 27 ("[A]n Anders motion to withdraw brought in the court of appeals, in the absence of additional grounds for withdrawal, may be premature."); In re A.M., 495 S.W.3d 573, 582-83 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2016, pet. 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., 520 S.W.3d at 27-28.
/s/ Bonnie Sudderth
Bonnie Sudderth
Chief Justice Delivered: March 4, 2021