## In the Court o f Appea ls Se cond Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth

____ _______________________

No. 02

- 20

- 00164

- CV

___________________________

O n Appeal from the 367th District Court Denton County, Texas Trial Court No. 19

- 5791

- 367

Before Kerr, Bassel, and Womack, JJ.

Per Curiam Me morandum Opinion 

### I N THE 

### I NTEREST OF 

### E.N., A 

### C HILD2 M EMORANDUM OPINI ON S.N. (Father) app eals from th e trial court ’ s order termina ting his par ental rights
to h is da ughter E.N. ( Ella ) 1 and award ing perm anent managing c on servator ship of her to the Department of Family and Protective Serv ices. 2 See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.00 1 (b)(1)(D), ( E), (O) , ( K), (b)( 2). We affirm.
Father ’ s appointed appellate counsel has file d a brief asserting that Father ’ s appeal is friv olous. See Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 744

– 45, 87 S. Ct. 1 396,
1400 (1967 ); see als o In re K.M. , 98 S.W.3d 77 4, 776

– 77 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth 2003, no pet.) (holding that Anders procedures ap ply in parental

- rights

- termination cases).
T he brief meets Ander s ’ s requirements by presenting a professi onal evaluation o f the
record and demonstrat ing why ther e are no argua ble grounds to be advanced on appeal. Although provided with the opportunity to o btain a copy of the appellate
record and to fil e a pro se response, Father has not done so. The Depa rtment of Family a n d Protective Se rvices has declined to file a response.
In a ssessing the correctness of a compliant Anders brief ’ s conclusion that an appeal from a judgment terminating parental rights is frivolous, we must independently examine t he appellate reco r d to determine i f any argu able grounds for

1 We u se aliases t o identify the parties

. See Tex. Fam . Code Ann . § 109.002(d); Tex. R. A p p. P. 9.8(b)(2 ).

2 The trial court also terminated Ella ’ s mother ’ s parental rights, but Ella ’ s mother has not appeale d.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. S tate , 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 19 91); Mays v. Stat e , 904 S.W.2d 920 , 922

– 23 ( Tex. App.

— Fo rt Worth 1995, no pet.). W e a l s o consider the Anders brief itself and any pro se
response. In r e 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 S chulman , 252 S. W.3d 403,
408

– 09 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proce eding). We have carefully reviewed counsel ’ s brief and the appell ate record. Finding no reversible error, we agree with counsel that this appeal is without merit. See Ble dsoe v. State , 17 8 S.W.3d 824, 827 (Tex. Cri m. App. 2005 ); In re D.D. , 279 S.W.3d 849,
850 (Tex. App.

— Dallas 2009, pet. denied). W e thus affirm t he trial court ’ s order terminating Father ’ s parental rights to Ella

. Father ’ s c ounsel did not file a motion to withdraw, and the r ecord does not show good cause for wi thdrawal independent from coun sel ’ 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). Accordi n g ly,
counsel rem ains appoi nted in this appeal through proceedings in the supreme court
unless otherwise relieved from her duties for goo d 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. Co de Ann. § 1 07.016 ( 3 )(C).4 Per C uria m Deliver ed: November 19, 2020