1 

## NO. 12

- 21

- 00118

- CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT
TYLER, TEXAS

IN THE INTEREST OF

M. T. & P. T.,

CHILDREN §
§
§ APPEAL FROM THE 420TH

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

NACOGDOCHES COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM
J.T. an d T.T. appeal the termination of their parental rights. J.T. ’s and T.T.’s counsel filed a brief in compliance wi th 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). W e affirm

.

B ACKGROUND
J.T. is the father and T.T . is the mother of M.T. and P.T

. On July 29, 2020 , the Departmen t of Family and Protective Services (the Department) filed an original petition for protection of M.T. and P.T. , for conservatorship, and for t ermination of J. T.’s and T.T. ’s parental rights. The Department was appointed temporary managing c onservator of the child ren, and the parents were granted limited access to, and possession of, the child ren

. At trial, neither parent appeared. The trial ju dge noted that on April 16, 2021, he inquired about appointing an attorney for the parents. The pare nts requeste d an appointed attorney , but neither parent contacted the court to obtain an indigency application or completed an application

. Macee Skillern, the Department’s caseworker, testified that the parents were in court on April
16 , when the final he aring date w as announced. Further, she stated that she sent J.T. and T.T. notice of the trial date and the information for them to participate by Zoom , an d contacted the parents two days before trial to remind them of the hearing

. According to Skillern, th e parents lived approximately one and one

- half miles from the courthouse , within walking distance and2 easy access to public transportation.
Skillern test ified that the Department received a referral of neglectful supervision of both
children and of substan ce abuse b y both parents

. During interviews , both children reported that their parents used a “green leafy” substance in their presence

. M.T. stated th at he traveled with
J.T. to a home where his father obtained a baggie of a “white powdery” substance. P.T. also made an outcry of domestic violence where she witnessed her father hitting her mother and pulling her mother’s hair. Skillern st ated that she had multiple conversations with the children regarding witnessing violence between their parents. M.T. remember e d an incident in which P.T. was playing outside when he saw his father hitting his mother. M.T. went outside, brought
P.T. back in to the home, and hid the children in a closet to try to keep them safe. During that incident, P.T. stated that she saw her f ather pi nning her mother against a wall by her throat and lifting her mother off the ground in a choking manner. M.T. also stated that he wa s hit by his father when he tried to intervene during an altercation between the parents. The parents both
denied the inci dent s happened.
Skillern believed that the parents’ drug use in the children ’s presence and the children ’s

exposure to domestic violenc e were conditions or surroundings that endangered the children’s physical or emotional well being

. Further, Skil lern beli eved that in leaving the children in these circumstances, J.T. and T.T. engaged in conduct or knowingly placed the children with perso n s who engaged in conduct that endangered the children’s physical or emotional well being

. Skillern testified tha t a famil y plan of service was generated for both parents, filed with the court, and made an order of the trial court. But neither parent comp le ted the service plan’s requirement that they buil d a sober support group that reinforced a sober lifestyl e

. Sh e stated
that the parents reported that they relied heavily on J.T.’s mother for their support group

. However, Skillern stated that J.T.’s moth er alleged ly use d illegal substances in the children’s
home

. As part of their required service plan, the parents were obligated to complete a drug
assessment with the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Council ( ADAC ) and follow all reco mmendations.
Skillern stated th at T.T. completed a n initial ADAC drug assessment and was referred to

out patient services. After receiving outpa tient serv ices, Skillern stated that T.T. again tested positive for methamphetamine. After Skillern asked T.T. to complete a second ADAC

asses sment , the assessment recommended T.T. complete an inpatient program. T.T. began3 receiving services in an inpati ent progra m on June 21, 2021 , and stopped receiving services on
June 29

. Skillern stated that T.T. was unsuccessfully discharged from the inpa tient progr am because she did not want to complete the program. According to Skillern, J.T. completed an
ADAC as sessment a nd was referred for inpatient services. However, as recently as June 2021,
J.T. told Skille rn and the CASA volunteer that he did not believe he needed inpatient services and was not going to complete such services. Skillern stated that J.T. rep orted that he needed to
take care of his ill mother. Further, the service plan required both parents to submit to random drug testing. Skillern stated that neither parent tested regularly when requested by the Department even though she explained that fail ure to tes t when requested counted as a positive drug test

. J.T. failed to test when requested over twe nty times , and T.T. failed to test when requested over fifteen times. On April 16, 2021, both parents were ordered to submit to drug testing after a cour t hearing but did not appear as ordered. Skillern testified that on April 20, J.T.’s hair follicle test was positive for methamphetamine metab olite. On May 20, T.T.’s urinalysis was positive for marijuana and methamphetamine. According to Skillern, J.T. and T.T. failed to complete a court ordered drug substance abuse program , and both parents used controlle d substances after that date and in a manner that endangered the health or safety of their children. Skillern testified that both parents were requir ed by thei r service plan to participate in counseling to learn the signs of domestic violence and its impa ct on children

. They were
referred t o Crossover Counseling but failed to participate in domestic violence counseling. Skillern stated that she spoke to T.T. al one regarding the domestic violence in the home and offered to assist her if she needed help to l eave a dangerous situation. However , T.T. told Skillern that she did not believe she was in any danger or in a domestic violence relationship.
J.T. was requir ed to complete a Batterer’s Intervention Prevention Program (BIPP) as part of his service plan to address domestic violence and its a ffect on the children’s development. He failed
to do so. Both parents were required to complete a psychosocial assessment as part of the service plan and to follow all recommendations. Skillern stated that neither parent completed a psychosocial assessm ent even though the Department referred them to a psychologist’s office three separate times. They scheduled a f ourth appo intment at their own expense but failed to

appear. According to Skillern, J.T. and T.T. did not succe ssfully complete any of the ser vices on4 their service plan. Skillern testified that the children were removed once before, in 2015, based on M. T.
obtaini ng a shotgun in the house and shooting it twice. That investigation found that the parents
were under the influence of methamphetami ne. According to Skillern, M.T. and P.T. do not believe that their parents would be able to keep them safe, and M.T. expre ssed fear of entering foster care again. She stated that neither child wanted to return home, particular ly M.T., or be
with relative s who they do not believe can keep them safe. Both children have told their parents that they did not feel comfo rtable ret urning home nor is either child comfortable participating in Zoom calls with their parents. Skillern testi fied that both children wo uld like to stay in foster care until they could find a family that would offer them a safe and appropriate home. The
chil dren have a strong bond even though they are in separate foster homes due to M.T.’s
behavior al problems.
Skillern believed that it w as in the children’s best interest for J.T.’s and T.T.’s parental rights to be terminated. She stated that after almost one year, the parents failed to show that they are protective towards the children and failed to address the issues that created the si tuation leading to the Department’s involvement

. The CASA volunteer and the children’s attorney ad
litem both re commended th at J.T.’s and T.T.’s parental rights be terminated. At the conclusion of a bench trial, the trial court found by clear and convinc ing evidence
that J. T. engaged in one or more of the acts or omissions necessary to support termination of h is

pa rental right s under subsections (D), (E), (O), and (P) of Texas F amily Code Section 161.001(b)(1). The trial court also found by clear and con vincing evidence that termination of the parent

- child relationship between J. T., M.T., and P.T. is in the child re n ’s best int erest. Based on these findings, the trial court order ed that the parent

- child relationship between J. T., M.T.,
and P.T. be termina ted.
The trial court also found by clear and convincing evidence that T.T. engaged in one or
more of the acts or omissions n ecessary to support termination of her parental rights under subsections (D), (E), (O), and (P) of Section 161.001(b)(1). The tria l court found by clear and convincing evidence that termination of the parent

- child relationship between T.T., M. T., and
P.T. is in the children’s best interest. Based on these fi ndings, the trial court ordered that the parent

- child relationship between T .T., M.T., and P.T. be terminated. This appeal followed.5 A NALYSIS P URSUANT TO A NDERS V
. C ALIFORNIA
J .T.’s and T .T. ’s counse l filed a brief in compliance with Anders , stating that counsel 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 previ ously held that Anders procedures apply in parental right s termination cases when the Department 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 present s a profession al evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no reversible grounds on appeal, and referencing any grounds that might arg uably 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.

— F ort 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, 5 11 (Tex. Cr im. App. 1991); Mays , 904 S.W.2d at 923. We carefully reviewed the appellate record and counsel ’ s brief. We find nothing in the r ecord that might arguably support the appeal. 1 See Taylor v. Tex. Dep’ t of Protective & Regulatory Servs ., 160 S .W. 3d 641, 6 46

– 47 (Tex. App.

— Austin 2005, pet. denied).

D ISPOSITION We agree with J. T.’s and T.T. ’s counsel that the appeal is wholly frivolou s. Counsel for
J.T. and T.T. has moved to withdraw. In In re P.M. , the Texas Supreme Court held that the right

to cou nsel i n suits seeking the termination of parental rights extends to “all proceedings in [the Texas Supreme Court], including the filing o f a petition for review.” 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 (Tex. 2016). Accordingly, co unsel’s obligation to J.T. and T.T

. has not yet been discharged. See id . If
J .T. and T.T. , after consulting with counsel, desire to file a petition for review, counsel should timely file with the Texas Suprem e Court “a petition for review that satisfies the standards for an
Anders brief.” S ee id. at 27

- 28; see also A.C . v. Tex. De p’t of Family & Protective Servs. , No.
03

- 16

- 00543

- CV, 2016 WL 5874880, at *1 n.2 (Tex. App.

— Austin Oct. 5, 2016, no pet.) (mem.

op .). Accordingly, we deny counsel’s motion to withdraw and we affirm the trial court’ s

1 In compliance with Kelly v. State , counsel for J.T. and T.T. certified that he provided them with a copy of his brief, info rmed them of their right to file a pro se response, and took concr ete measures to facilitate their review of the appel late recor d. 436 S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). J .T. and T.T. were given time to file their own brief , but the time for filing s uch brief ha s expir ed and no pro se brief ha s been filed.6 judgment. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 43.2.
O pinion delivered December 21 , 2021. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.7 

## COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUD GMENT

DECE MBER 21 , 2021

NO. 12

- 21

- 00118

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF M. T. & P. T., CHILDRE N

Appeal from the 420th Dist rict Court
of Nacogdoches County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. C2035889 ) THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and brief filed herein,
and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that there was no error in the judgment.
It is therefo re ORDERED , ADJUDGED and DECREED that the judgment of
the court below be in all things affirmed , and that this decision be certified to th e court belo w for observance. By per curiam opinion

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