NO. 12-14-00002-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

IN THE INTEREST OF

J. Y. AND C. R.,

CHILDREN

§

§

§

APPEAL FROM THE 123RD 

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

SHELBY COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

K.W. appeals the termination of her parental rights. K.W.’s counsel filed a brief in 

compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and 

Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). We affirm.

BACKGROUND

K.W. is the mother of J.Y., born November 17, 1999, and C.R., born May 14, 2008. 

Neither father is a party to this appeal. On February 15, 2013, the Department of Family and 

Protective Services (the Department) filed an original petition for protection of J.Y. and C.R., for 

conservatorship, and for termination of K.W.’s parental rights. The Department was appointed 

temporary managing conservator of the children, and K.W. was appointed temporary possessory 

conservator.

At the conclusion of the trial on the merits, the trial court found, by clear and convincing 

evidence, that K.W. had engaged in one or more of the acts or omissions necessary to support 

termination of her parental rights. The trial court also found that termination of K.W.’s parental 

rights to J.Y. and C.R. was in the children’s best interest. Based on these findings, the trial court 

ordered that K.W.’s parental rights to J.Y. and C.R. be terminated. This appeal followed.
2

ANALYSIS PURSUANT TO ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA

K.W.’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders, stating that he has diligently 

reviewed the appellate record and is of the opinion that the record reflects no reversible error and 

that there is no error upon which an appeal can be predicated. This court has previously held that 

Anders procedures apply in parental rights termination cases when the Department has moved 

for termination. See In re K.S.M., 61 S.W.3d 632, 634 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2001, no pet.). In 

compliance with Anders, counsel’s brief presents a professional evaluation of the record 

demonstrating why there are no reversible grounds on appeal, and referencing any grounds that 

might arguably support the appeal. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; Mays v. 

State, 904 S.W.2d 920, 922-23 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1995, no pet.). 

In our duties as a reviewing court, we must conduct an independent evaluation of the 

record to determine whether counsel is correct in determining that the appeal is frivolous. See

Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Mays, 904 S.W.2d at 923. We 

have carefully reviewed the appellate record and K.W.’s counsel’s brief. We find nothing in the 

record that might arguably support the appeal,1and we agree that the appeal is wholly frivolous 

and without merit. See Taylor v. Tex. Dep’t of Protective & Regulatory Servs., 160 S.W.3d 641, 

646–47 (Tex. App.—Austin 2005, pet. denied).

DISPOSITION

As required, K.W.’s counsel has moved for leave to withdraw. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 

744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400. We agree with K.W.’s counsel that the appeal is wholly frivolous. 

Accordingly, his motion for leave to withdraw is hereby granted, and the trial court’s judgment

is affirmed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2.

Opinion delivered April 9, 2014.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.

(PUBLISH)

 

1 Counsel for K.W. certified that he provided K.W. with a copy of his brief and informed her that she had 

the right to file her own brief. K.W. was given time to file her own brief, but the time for filing such a brief has 

expired and we have received no pro se brief.
COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

APRIL 9, 2014

NO. 12-14-00002-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF J. Y. AND C. R., CHILDREN

Appeal from the 123rd District Court 

of Shelby County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 13CV32,306)

THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and briefs filed 

herein, and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that there was no error in the 

judgment.

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that Appellant’s 

counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted, the judgment of the court below be in all things 

affirmed, and that this decision be certified to the court below for observance.

By per curiam opinion.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.