## In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth

_____ ______________________ N o. 0 2

- 19

- 00196

- CV

___________________________

On Appeal from the 323rd Di stri ct Court Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 323

- 107548

- 18

Before Bassel, J .; Sudderth, C.J.; and Gabriel , J. Per Cur iam Memorandum Opinion 

### I N THE 

### I NTEREST OF 

### A.F., A 

### C HILD2 MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant A.F. (Father ) appeals the termination of his parental rights to his daughter A nna . 1 After a bench trial, during which evidence was presented that Fat her
had used drugs and had exposed Anna to drugs , that Father had continued to test positive for drugs while the case was pendi ng , and that Father di d not complete the

tas ks on his service plan, t he trial court found by clear and convincing evidence that
Fa ther’s actions (and inaction ) satisfied the grounds listed in Te xas Family Code
section 16 1.001(b)(1) (D), (E), and ( O ) and that termination of Fa the r’s parental rights

was in A nna ’ s best interest. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § § 161.001(b)( 1)(D), ( E), ( O ), (2)

. See general ly In re A.B. , 437 S.W.3d 4 98, 503 (Tex. 2014) (recognizing a ppellate

court need not detail the evidence if aff irming termination judgm ent)

. We affir m. F a ther’s appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw as counsel and a brief in support of that motion in which he a sserts that Father ’ s appeal is
fri volous. Although given the opportunity to file a pro se response to the A nder s brief, Fa ther did not fi le a response . The Department of Family and Protective
Services filed a letter agreeing that the appeal is frivolous and stating that it would not file a response t o the motion to withdraw

. Counsel’s brief and motion meet the require ments of Anders v. California by presenti ng a professiona l evaluation of the record demonst rating why there a re no

1 See Tex. R. Ap p. P. 9.8(b)(2) (requiring court to us e aliases to refer to mino rs i n a n appeal from a judgment terminating parental rights). All children are referred to using aliases.3 reversible grounds on ap peal and referencing any grounds t hat might arguably support the appeal. See 386 U. S. 738, 744, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967); see also In re K.M. , 98 S.W.3d 774, 776

– 77 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth 20 03, order ) (hol ding Anders procedures apply in parental

– rights termination cases), disp. on merit s , No. 02

- 01

- 00349

- CV, 2003 WL 2006583 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth May 1, 2003, n o pet.) (mem. op.) (per curiam)

. In reviewing an Anders br ief, this court is not required to r eview the merit s of each claim raised in the brief or in a pro se response. Cf. Bleds oe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 827 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Rat her, this court’s duty is to dete rmine whether there are any arguable gro unds for reversal and, if there are, to remand the case to the trial court so that new counsel may be appointed to brief t he issues. Id. Thus, we
conduct an i ndependent evaluation o f the record to determi ne whether couns el is correct in determining that the appeal is friv olous. Cf. Staffo rd v. State , 81 3 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); see al so K.M. , 2003 WL 200658 3, at *2. We have carefully revi ewed the appellate record and counse l’s b rief

. Finding no reversible error, w e agre e with counsel that th is appeal is without merit. See Bledsoe , 178 S.W.3d at 827 ; In re D.D. , 279 S.W.3d 849, 850 (Tex. App.

— D allas 2009, pe t. denied). Therefore, we affirm the tria l c ourt’s judgment terminating Fa ther’s parental rights to A nna. Beca use counsel ’ s moti on to withdraw does not show good caus e for the withdrawal indepen dent from counsel ’ s conclusion that the appeal is f rivolo u s , we deny th e motion

. See In re P.M. , 520 S.W .3d 24 , 27

– 28 ( Tex. 201 6) (order) ; In re C.J

. ,4 501 S.W.3d 254, 255 (Tex. App.

— Fort Wo rth 2016, pets. denied)

. Accordingly, counsel remains appointed in this appeal thro ugh proceedings in t h e supr eme co urt unl ess otherwise relieved from her duties for good cause in accor dance with family code section 107.016(3)(C). See P.M. , 520 S.W.3d at 27

.

Per Curiam
Delivered: Octo ber 3, 2019