## NO. 12

- 1 3

- 00 3 14

- C V

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

IN THE INTEREST OF § APPEAL FROM THE

J.F. AND C.O., § COUNTY COURT AT LAW

CHILDREN § CHEROKEE COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

M.F. appeals the termination of her parental rights. M.F.’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.

B ACKGROUND

M.F. is the mother of J.F., born November 10, 2004, and C.O., born October 2, 2009. J.F.’s

father is deceased, and C.O.’s father is not a party to this appeal. On July 13, 2012, the

Department of Family and Protective Services (the Department) filed an original petition for

protection of J.F. and C.O., for conservatorship, and for termination of M.F.’s parental rights.

The Department was appointed temporary managing conservator of the children, and M.F. was

appointed temporary possessory conser vator.

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

evidence, that the parent

- child relationship between M.F. and the children should be terminated.

The trial court found, by clear and convincing evidence and based on the jury’s findings, that M.F.

had engaged in one or more of the acts or omissions necessary to support termination of her2

parental rights. The trial court also found that termination of the parent

- child relationship

between M.F., J.F., and C.O. was i n the children’s best interest. Based on these findings, the trial

court ordered that the parent

- child relationship between M.F., J.F., and C.O. be terminated. This

appeal followed.

A NALYSIS P URSUANT TO A NDERS V

. C ALIFORNIA

M.F.’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 th at

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. Sta te

,

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 M.F.’s counsel’s brief. We see nothing in the

record that might arguably support the appeal, 1 and 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).

D ISPOSITION

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

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

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

1 Counsel for M.F. certified that he provided M.F. with a copy of his brief and informed her that she had the
right to file her own brief. M.F. 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.3

judgment. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 43.2.

Opinion delivered December 20 , 2013.

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

(PUBLISH)4 

### COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

DECEMBER 20 , 201 3

NO. 12

- 1 3

- 00 314

- C V

IN THE INTEREST OF J.F. AND C.O., CHILDREN

Appeal from the County Court at Law

of Cherokee County, Texas. (Tr.Ct.No. 2012

- 07

- 0535 )

TH I S 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 w as 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.