## In the Cou rt of Appeals S econd Ap pellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

___________________________ No. 02

- 22

- 00454

- CV

___________________________

On Appeal from the 324th District Court Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 324

- 613430

- 17

Before Bassel, Wom a c k, and Wallach, JJ. Me mora ndum Opinion by Justice Womack 

### I N THE 

### I NTEREST OF 

### K.B., Z.B., G.C., K.C., J.C., AND 

### P.B., C HILDREN2 MEMORAN DUM OPINION
I. I NTRODUCTION Appellant A.B. (Mother) 1 appeals the trial cou rt ’ s order terminating her parent

– child relationship with her children: K.B., Z.B

. , G.C., K.C., J.C., and P.B. 2 The tria l
court found that t h e Department of Family and Protective Services had proved three
conduct

- based grounds for termination and that termination was in the chil dren ’ s best
interest. Se e Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), (O), (2). The trial cou rt awarded permanent m a naging conservatorship of the children to the Department. Mother timely appealed.
II. B ACKGROUND Mother ’ s appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief asse rting that he “has
been unable to identify a ny legally non

- frivolou s grounds for appeal” and t hat
Mother ’ s appeal is therefore 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

– 7 7 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth 2003, order) (hol ding that Anders procedures apply in parental

- rights termination cases), disp. on merits , No. 2

- 01

- 349

- CV, 2003 WL 2006583, at *2

– 3 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth May 1, 2003, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op.). Counsel ’ s br ie f

1 We use initial s to refer to Mother and he r children

. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 1 09.002(d); Tex. R. App. P. 9.8 (b)(2)

.

2 The children ’ s parent

– child relations hip s with their father s were also terminated, but no appeal s were fi led on behalf of the fat hers.3

meets the Anders requirements by presen ting a professional evaluation of the record
and dem onstrating why there are no arguable grounds to advance on appeal. We provided Mother the opportunity to obtain a copy of the appellate record and to file a p ro se response, but she did not do so

. 3 The Department has agreed that no meritorious grounds for appeal exist and thus has declined to file a responsive
brief

. I II. D ISCUSSION When an Anders brief is filed, we must independently examine the appellat e record to determine if any arguable grounds f or appeal exist. In re C.J. , No. 02

- 18

- 00219

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

— Fort Worth Sept. 20, 2018, no pet.) (mem. op.); see Stafford v. State , 81 3 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. Ap p. 1991). We also

c onsider the Anders brief itself and, if filed, any pro se response. In re K.M. , No. 02

- 18

- 00073

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

— Fort Worth July 5, 2018, pet. denied) (mem. op.); see Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 408

– 09

.

3 We mailed Mother written notice informing her that her court

- appo inted counsel h ad fi led an A nders brief and that she could obtain a copy of the appellate record and file a pro se response

. However, this notice was returned to the court as undel iverable. C o unsel informed us t hat he was hav ing difficulty locat

ing M other and that h is brief

, which had been served on M other by certified mail at her last known addr ess , had been returned to him as well

. Coun sel reached out to Mother ’ s trial cour t attorney to see if sh e had a better addre ss for Mother , but th ese effor ts were n ot f ruitful. Given that a party who fails to keep her att orney informed of h er curr ent address forfeits the right to receive a copy of the Anders brief and t he right to file a p ro se response , In re Schulman , 2 52 S.W.3d 403, 408 n.21 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (ori g. proceeding) , we hold t hat counsel complied with his Anders duties in this case

.4

We have carefully reviewed app ointed appellate counsel ’ s Anders brief and the appellate record. Having found no reversible error , we agree with counsel that this appeal is without merit. See Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W. 3d 824, 827 (Tex. Cr im. App. 2005); In re D.D. , 279 S.W.3d 849, 850 (Tex. App.

— Dallas 2009, pet. denied). Therefore, we affirm the trial court ’ s order terminating th e parent

– child relationship
between Mother and the children.
Mother ’ s co unsel remains app ointed in this appea l through proceedings in the supreme court unle ss otherwise relieved from his duties for good cause in accordance with Family Code Section 107.016

. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 107.016; In re P.M. , 520 S.W.3d 24, 27

– 28 (Te x. 2016) (order)

. I V. C ONCLUSION
We agree with counsel that Mother ’ s appeal is fri volous; thus, we affirm the
trial court ’ s termination order. /S/ Dana Womack
Dana Womack Justice
Delivered: Ma r ch 9, 2023