## In the Court of Appe als Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth

___________________________ No. 02

- 21

- 00439

- CV

___________________________

O n Appeal from the 325th District Court Tarrant Count y, Texas Trial Court No. 325

- 687468

- 20

Before Kerr, Wallach, and W alker, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Kerr 

### I N THE 

### I NTEREST OF 

### J.M., A 

### C HILD2 MEM ORAN DUM OPINION
V.M

. ( Mother ) app e als from th e trial court ’ s order termina ting her par ental rights to her son J.M. ( James ) 1 and award ing pe rm anent managing c on servator ship of
him to the Department of Family and Protective Serv ices. 2 See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 1 61.00 1 (b)(1 )(D), ( E), (O) , ( R ), (b)( 2). We will affirm

. Mother ’ s appointed appella te coun sel has file d a bri ef asser ting that Mother ’ s appeal is friv o lo us. See Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 744

– 45, 87 S. Ct. 1 39 6,
1 400 (1967 ); see als o In re K.M. , 9 8 S.W.3d 77 4, 776

– 77 (Tex. App

. — Fort Worth 2 0 0 3 , ord er ) (hold ing that Anders procedures ap ply in parental

- r ights

- termination case s) , dis p.

o n mer its , No. 2

- 01

- 349

- CV, 2003 WL 2006583, at * 2

– 3 (Tex. App.

— Fort Wor th May 1, 2 003, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. o p .)

. T he brief meets Ander s ’ s requirem en ts by
p resenting a professi onal evaluation o f th e record and de mo nst rat ing why ther e are no
argua ble grounds to be advanced on appeal. Mother ’ s counsel has certified to us that
he p rovided Mother with a copy of the An ders brief and informed her of her right s to request and to review the appellate record , 3 to file a pro se response in this court, and

1 W e u se aliases t o id entify t he parties

. See Tex. Fam . Code Ann . § 109.002(d); Tex. R. A p p. P. 9.8(b)(2 ).

2 The trial court also terminated Jame s ’ s father ’ s parental rights, but Jam es ’ s father has not appeale d.

3 To that end, M o ther ’s counsel also certified to us that he explain ed to Mo ther the process of obtaining the appellate record ; furnished her with a m otion for pro se
ac cess to the record , which lack ed on ly Moth e r ’ s signature and the date ; and provide d her with o ur mailing address and the motion ’ s filing deadline.3 t o seek review from the Texas Supreme Court

. We a lso informed Mother that her appoi nted appellate counsel had filed an An der s brief and gave her an opportunity to
examine th e appellate rec ord and to file a pro se response to the Anders brief. Mother
did not file a respo nse, 4 and t he Departmen t o f Family and Protective Serv ic es has
declined t o file a response
. I n a ssessing th e corr ectness of a complia nt A nders brief ’ s conclusion that an appeal from a judgment terminating parental rights is frivolous, we must independ ent ly examine t he appellate rec o r d t o determine i f any argu able gro u nd s for appeal exi st. 5 In re C. J. , No. 02

- 18

- 00219

- CV, 2018 WL 4496240, a t *1 (Tex. App

. — Fort Worth Sept. 20, 2018, no pet.) (mem. op.); see al so Staffo rd v. S tate , 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex

. Cri m. App. 19 91); Mays v. Sta t e , 904 S.W.2d 920 , 922

– 23 ( Tex. App

. —

4 Mo ther did not respon d to our letter notifying her of the Anders brief and giving her a c hance to examine th e re cord a nd to file a pr o se res ponse. Bu t the day before this case was set for submi ssion, we received a letter from M o ther reque sting a copy of the Anders brief and an opp ortunity to respon d

. On May 4, 2022, w e granted Mother ’ s reques t , gave he r 14 days to file a pro s e respon se , and provide d her with copies of the Ande rs brief and the appellate record

. See Tex. R. App. P. 9 .2(b) , 38.6(d)

. We informed her that we would grant no extensions

. See Tex . R. Jud. Ad mi n. 6.2( a ) , reprinted in T ex. G ov ’ t Code Ann. , t it. 2, subtit . F app
. We cautioned Mother t hat if she did not file a response, we w ould assume that she did not intend t o file one , and we would consider the appeal without it. See Tex. R. App. P. 9.2(b) , 38.6(d)

. More than f

ourt een days have passed, and we have received n o response
.
5 In the cou rse of our indep endent review of the record , we co ntacted the court rep orter to ensure that we had transcr ipt s of all pretrial hea ring s and asked that he pr epare any missing transcripts

. H e pr ovided us with an eight

- p age continuance

hearing transcript , which we have reviewed along with the clerk ’ s record and the t r ial transcript. We rem ind M o t her ’ s court

- app ointed counsel of his duty to review the entire record when a sse ssing wh e ther an appeal is fri vo lous

.4 F o rt Worth 1995, no pet.). W e a l s o conside r the A nders brief itself a nd any pro se

re sponse. In r e K.M. , No. 02

- 18

- 00073

- CV, 2018 WL 3288591, at *10 ( Tex. App.

— Fort Worth July 5, 2018, pe t. de nied) (mem . op. ); see In r e S c hulman , 252 S. W.3d 403,
408

– 09 ( T ex . Crim. App. 200 8) (orig. pr oce eding).
We have c arefully reviewed co un s el ’ s brief a nd t he appell ate record . Finding nothing in the record that could arguabl y support an appeal , we agree wi th counsel
that Mother ’ s appeal i s frivolous and without merit

. See Ble dsoe v. State , 1 7 8 S.W.3d
8 2 4, 827 (Te x. Cri m. App. 200 5 ); In re D. D

. , 2 79 S.W .3d 8 49, 850 (Tex. A pp.

— Dallas 2009, pet. denied). W e thus affirm t he trial court ’ s ord er termin ating M o ther ’ s parental rights to James

. Mother ’ s counsel re mains appointed through proceedings in the
sup reme court unl ess otherwise relieved. 6 See I n re P.M. , 520 S .W. 3d 24, 27

– 28 (Tex. 2016) (order)

.

/s/ Elizabeth Kerr Elizabeth Kerr Justice
Delivered: June 6 , 2022

6 Mother ’ s c o u nsel noted in his brief that he would move t o withdraw as appellate counsel in the s u pr eme court.