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

______________________ _____ No. 02

- 20

- 00 013

- CV

____ _

_

_____________________

On Appeal from the 231st District Court Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 231

- 5278 16

- 13

Befo r e Birdwell, Kerr, and Bas sel, JJ. Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion 

### I N THE 

### I NTEREST OF 

### M.H. AND 

### C.H., C HILDREN2 MEMORANDUM OPINION A.H., the father of two c hildren, a ppeals from a trial court ’ s order terminating his parental rights and awarding permane nt managing con serva t orship of both child ren to the D epartment of Family and Protective S e rv ices

. 1 See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(b)(1)( D) , ( E ) , ( O ), (b)(2 ). We affirm

. Fath er ’ s appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief in which he a sserts that Fat her ’ s appeal is frivo l ous. See Anders v. C alifornia , 3 86 U.S. 738, 744

– 45, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967); see als o In re K. M. , 98 S.W.3d 774, 776

– 77 (Tex. App.

–– Fort Worth 2 003, n o pet. ) (holding that Ander s procedures apply in parental

- rights termination cases). The b rief meets Anders ’s requirement s by presen t ing a professional evaluation of the record and d emons trating why t here are no arguable grounds to be advanced on app eal. A lthoug h provided w ith the opportunity to obtain a copy of the appellate record and file a p ro se res p onse , Fa t h er has not done so . T h e Department of F a mily and P rotective S e rvices has declined to file a respon se . In assessing the correctness of a co m pliant Anders brief ’ s co nclusion that an appeal from a jud gment terminating parental rights is frivolous , w e must indep enden tly examine th e appellate record to determine if any arguable grounds for

1 The trial court originally terminated Fathe r ’ s rights along with the childre n ’ s mother ’ s in a September 2 018 judgment, which only Father app ealed

. See In re M.H. , No. 02

- 18

- 00329

- CV , 2019 WL 1284912, at * 1 (Tex. App.

–– Fort W orth Mar. 21 , 2019 , n o pet.) (mem. op.)

. We rev ersed th at ju dgment as to Father and remanded the case to th e trial court fo r a new trial at which Father was to be afforded appointed counsel. See id. at * 2

– 3. This appe al is from the judgmen t after that new t rial.3 appeal exist. In re C.J. , No . 02

- 18

- 00219

- CV, 2018 WL 4496 240, a t *1 (Tex. App.

–– Fort Worth Sept. 20, 201 8, no pet.) (me m. op.) ; see also Stafford v . State , 813 S.W

. 2d 503, 511 (Tex. Cr im. App. 19 9 1); Mays v. S tate , 904 S.W.2d 920, 922

– 23 (Tex. App.

–– Fort Worth 1995, no pet.). W e also co nsider th e Ande rs brief it self a nd any pro se

res ponse. In re K.M. , No. 02

- 18

- 000 73

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

–– Fort Wor t h July 5, 2018, pet. den i ed) (me m. op. ); see In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d 403, 408

– 09 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding). We have carefully revi ewed c ounsel ’ s brief a nd the appellate record. Finding no reversible error, we agree with counsel that thi s appeal is without m erit. See Bl edsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 827 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); In re D.D. , 279 S.W.3 d 849, 850 (Tex. App.

–– Dallas 2009, pet. d e nied). Therefor e, we affirm the trial court ’ s order terminating Father ’ s parental rights to M.H. a nd C .H. Counsel did no t file a mot ion to withdraw , a n d the r ecord does not show good cause for withdrawal independe nt from counsel ’ s conclusion that th e appe al is frivolous

. See In re P.M. , 520 S.W.3d 24, 27

– 28 (Tex. 2016) (order); In re C.J. , 501 S.W.3d 2 54 , 255 (Tex. App.

–– Fo rt Worth 201 6, pet s. denied). A ccordingly, counse l remains appointed in this appeal through p roceedings in the supreme court unle ss oth erwise relieved from h is duties for good cause in accordance with F amily C ode S ection 107.016(3)(C)

. P.M. , 520 S.W.3d at 27. Per Curi am De livered: April 30, 2020