In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth ___________________________

No. 02-20-00164-CV

___________________________

On Appeal from the 367th District Court

Denton County, Texas

Trial Court No. 19-5791-367

Before Kerr, Bassel, and Womack, JJ.

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

IN THE INTEREST OF E.N., A CHILD
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

S.N. (Father) appeals from the trial court’s order terminating his parental rights 

to his daughter E.N. (Ella)

1 and awarding permanent managing conservatorship of her

to the Department of Family and Protective Services.2 See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. 

§ 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), (O), (K), (b)(2). We affirm.

Father’s appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief asserting that Father’s 

appeal is 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, 776–77 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2003, 

no pet.) (holding that Anders procedures apply in parental-rights-termination cases). 

The brief meets Anders’s requirements by presenting a professional evaluation of the 

record and demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced on 

appeal. Although provided with the opportunity to obtain a copy of the appellate 

record and to file a pro se response, Father has not done so. The Department of 

Family and Protective Services has declined to file a response.

In assessing the correctness of a compliant Anders brief’s conclusion that an 

appeal from a judgment terminating parental rights is frivolous, we must 

independently examine the appellate record to determine if any arguable grounds for 

1

We use aliases to identify the parties. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 109.002(d); 

Tex. R. App. P. 9.8(b)(2).

2

The trial court also terminated Ella’s mother’s parental rights, but Ella’s

mother has not appealed.
3

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 also Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 

503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Mays v. State, 904 S.W.2d 920, 922–23 (Tex. App.—

Fort Worth 1995, no pet.). We also consider the Anders brief itself and 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 In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 

408–09 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding).

We have carefully reviewed counsel’s brief and the appellate record. Finding no 

reversible error, we agree with counsel that this appeal is without merit. See Bledsoe v.

State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); In re D.D., 279 S.W.3d 849,

850 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2009, pet. denied). We thus affirm the trial court’s order 

terminating Father’s parental rights to Ella.

Father’s counsel did not file a motion to withdraw, and the record does not 

show good cause for withdrawal independent from counsel’s conclusion that the 

appeal 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 254, 255 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2016, pets. denied). Accordingly, 

counsel remains appointed in this appeal through proceedings in the supreme court 

unless otherwise relieved from her duties for good cause in accordance with Family 

Code Section 107.016(3)(C). See P.M., 520 S.W.3d at 27–28; see also Tex. Fam. Code 

Ann. § 107.016(3)(C).
4

Per Curiam

Delivered: November 19, 2020