Opinion
NO. 02-16-00004-CV
05-05-2016
IN THE INTEREST OF M.M., A.M., G.M., I.M., I.M., AND A.M., CHILDREN
FROM THE 323RD DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY
TRIAL COURT NO. 323-100557-14 MEMORANDUM OPINION
See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
Appellant A.M. appeals the trial court's judgment terminating her parental rights to her six children; M.M., A.M., G.M., I.M., I.M., and A.M. After a bench trial, the trial court found that clear and convincing evidence had established that A.M. knowingly placed or knowingly allowed her children to remain in conditions or surroundings that endangered their physical or emotional well-being; that A.M. engaged in conduct or knowingly placed her children with persons who engaged in conduct that endangered their physical or emotional well-being; that A.M.'s parental rights had been terminated with respect to another child based on a finding that her conduct violated substantially equivalent endangerment provisions of the laws of another state; and that A.M. failed to comply with the provisions of a court order that established the actions necessary for her to obtain the children's return. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), (M), (O) (West Supp. 2015). The trial court also found by clear and convincing evidence that termination of A.M.'s parental rights was in the children's best interests. See id. § 161.001(b)(2).
To protect the children's anonymity, we use initials only. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 109.002(d) (West 2014); Tex. R. App. P. 9.8(b)(2). The trial court also terminated the parental rights of the children's alleged father, but he did not appeal. --------
A.M.'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 this appeal is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45, 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 parental termination cases). A.M.'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. Although given the opportunity, A.M. did not file a response to the Anders brief. By letter, the State informed this court that it also would not provide briefing.
As the reviewing appellate court, we must independently examine the record to decide whether counsel is correct in determining that A.M.'s appeal 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 counsel's Anders brief, we agree with counsel that A.M.'s appeal is frivolous. See K.R.C., 346 S.W.3d at 619. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. See In re D.D., 279 S.W.3d 849, 850 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2009, pet. denied). Accordingly, we grant A.M.'s appellate counsel's motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court's judgment.
In light of the Supreme Court of Texas's recent decision in In the Interest of P.M., we abate this case back to the trial court to determine whether A.M. should be appointed new counsel to pursue a petition for review. See No. 15-0171, 2016 WL 1274748, at *3-4 (Tex. Apr. 1, 2016).
/s/ Bill Meier
BILL MEIER
JUSTICE PANEL: DAUPHINOT, GARDNER, and MEIER, JJ. DELIVERED: May 5, 2016