COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-17-00088-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF D.J. AND 

D.J., CHILDREN

----------

FROM THE 323RD DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

TRIAL COURT NO. 323-103126-16

----------

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

----------

Appellant D.E.J. (Father) appeals the trial court’s order terminating his 

parental rights to his children, D.J. and D.J. After a bench trial in which Father 

was represented by counsel, the trial court found that he had knowingly placed or 

allowed the children to remain in conditions or surroundings that endangered 

their physical or emotional well-being, had engaged in conduct or knowingly 

placed the children with persons who engaged in conduct that endangered their 

physical or emotional well-being, and had constructively abandoned the children. 

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2

See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), (N) (West Supp. 2016). The 

trial court also found that termination of Father’s parental rights was in the 

children’s best interest. See id. § 161.001(b)(2).

Father’s appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. 

California in which counsel avers that Father’s appeal is frivolous and without 

merit. See 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). The brief meets the 

requirements of Anders by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and 

demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced on appeal. 

Counsel also sent Father a letter that informed him of several matters, including 

his right to file a response to the Anders brief. Although given the opportunity, 

Father has not responded to counsel’s Anders brief. The State has not filed a 

brief.

As the reviewing court, we must independently examine the record to 

decide whether the 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 the Anders

brief, we agree that the appeal is frivolous. We find nothing in the record that 

might arguably support Father’s appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 

827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Therefore, we affirm the trial court’s order 

terminating the parent-child relationship between Father and the children. But 
3

we deny counsel’s motion to withdraw because he does not show “good cause” 

separate and apart from his accurate determination that there are no arguable 

grounds for appeal. See In re P.M., No. 15-0171, 2016 WL 1274748, at *3 (Tex. 

Apr. 1, 2016) (holding that the right to counsel under family code section 

107.013(a)(1) extends to proceedings in the supreme court and that in the 

absence of additional grounds for withdrawal, an Anders motion to withdraw 

brought in the court of appeals may be premature); In re C.J., 501 S.W.3d 254, 

255 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2016, pets. denied).

/s/ Bill Meier

BILL MEIER

JUSTICE

PANEL: MEIER, SUDDERTH, and KERR, JJ.

DELIVERED: August 3, 2017