## In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Wo r th

_____ _______ _______________ No. 02

- 22

- 00133

- CV

___________________________

On Appeal from the 322nd District Court Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 322

- 679833

- 20
Before Sudderth, C.J.; Kerr and Birdwell, JJ. Me mora ndum Opinion by Chief Justice Sudderth 

### I N THE 

### I NTEREST OF 

### I.P., M.G., P.P. , AND 

### T.P., C HILDREN2 MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant I. P. (

Mother ) appe a l s (1) th e t ermina tion of the parent

– child relationship between her and three of her c hi l dren

— M.G. ( Mary ), P.P. (P eter), and
T. P. ( Tamara )

— and (2) t h e appointment o f th e Department of F a mily and Protective
Services as the permanent managing conse rv ator of her fourth child

— I. P. (Is a ac )

. 1
Moth er ’ s appointed appellate counsel (Counsel) filed an Anders brief assertin g that
the re are no arguable , non frivolous issues for appeal

. A fte r re viewing t h is Anders
brief , considering Mother ’ s pro se responses to it , and conducting an inde pende nt

re view of the rec or d , we agree with Mother ’ s counsel t hat there are no arguable grounds for appea l

. W e affirm

. I
. Background
Mother ’ s p arental right s to Mary, P e ter, and Tama ra were terminated and the Department was a pp ointed as Isaac ’ s permanent managing conservator after a se ri es of concer ning events.
A. Removal
In October and N ovember 2019

— while Moth er and the four children w ere livi ng with Mothe r ’ s then

- boyfrie nd, S.S. (Husband) 2

— t he Department received
repo rt s t ha t the three oldes t chil dren

— Is a ac, Mary, and P eter

— had bee n engag

ing in

1 The trial court al so terminated the parent

– child relationship between Mary P e ter , Tamara , and thei r respec tive fathers , but no ne of the fath ers have ap pealed.

2 Husband is not the biologica l fat her of any of the four c hildren.3

i nappro priat e sexual activities with one an other and with other chi ldren in the ir
home. 3 Mother bla med Mary and Is aac for the behavior , and sh e became increasingly

“ a dam ant that she wanted [Mary] and [Is aac] ou t of the home

. ” Con sequently , i n December 2019 , Mary and Is aa c we re removed with Mo ther ’s consent

. 4
That same mon th, both Mother and Husband te st ed positive f or cocaine a nd marijuana

. 5 W hen then

- fi ve

- year

- old P e ter and then

- six

- month

- old Tamara were tested for drugs , they too tested positive fo r coc aine a nd mari juana

. 6 M other later expla i ned the children ’ s p ositive drug tests by stating that th e drugs were “ in [ her ]
pores ” when she “ d[id] their ha i r . ” Peter and Tamara were remov ed in J anuar y 2020

. B
. Post

- Removal Actions
Around the time Peter and Tamara were removed , Mother married Hu sband , who she later testi fied had not only joined in but act ually encouraged her use o f
cocaine

. 7 At trial, Mother ad mitted t hat she had continu ed using c ocaine and

3 Mother , Husband , and the four children lived with Husba n d ’ s sister and the sister ’ s children.

4 Mother signe d a n a ffidavit stati n g , “ I n o long er want [ Mary and I saac ] in my home be caus e they are to uch ing [e ach other]

. ”

5 When co nfronted with her positive drug test , Mother admitted tha t sh e ha d used cocaine while all four chil dren were still l iving with her

.

6 Tamara also tested pos itive f or amphetamines and methamphetamines.

7 Mother later testified that Husb and had forced her to use cocaine through “peer pressure

. ”4

“ smoking weed ” through March 20 20. Mother further testified that Husband had
been violent t owa rd s her due to “[t ]he drugs

. ” Although M o t h e r insisted that the
violence had not start ed until after the fo ur children had been removed , P e ter confide d in h is foster fa ther that he had regularly heard “ screaming and fighting or tussling

. ” L ater, Mother moved into a domestic violence shelter

. 8
C
. Service Plan
A fter the Department removed each of the four children from Mother ’ s home,
the t rial court entered temporary orders re quiring Mothe r to com ply with t he
D epartment ’ s service plan , and the plan s pecified cond itions for the chil dren to ret urn

t o Mother ’ s hom e. One of Mother ’ s caseworker s testified that , when M other moved
i nto a faith

- base d living shelter in early 2021 , she began participati ng in and ultimately
“finished all of her servic es that [t he Department] re quired of her

. ” 9 B y mid

- 202 1 , she “was doing such an excellent job ” on her service plan th at the Department
decided not to seek term ination of her parent

– child r elationship with I s aac
— who was

8 A t the time of trial, Mo th er testified that she was working with legal aid to purs ue a d ivorce from Husband

.

9 The ca seworke r elaborated , confirming that Mother “ was goi ng to MHMR regula rly , ” she was “ taking her medication , ” she “ had passed all of her dr ug tests , ” she had completed the “ therapy, parenting c lasses, t he dark ness to lig ht cl ass, [and] individual counseling , ” she h ad “ submitted all of her certificates , ” and s he was “ on eve ry Zoom call. ”5

i n a residential treatment fa cili ty at the time 10

— and t he t rial court ins tead appointe d the Department as Isa ac ’ s per manent managing conservato r , with Moth er appointed
as possessory con servator
. See T ex . Fam. C ode An n. § 153.371

. The D epartme nt also supported a monitored return of M other ’ s other t hree children

. D
. Mo nitored Return
T he trial court ordered a mo n itore d r eturn of M a r y beginning in June 2021 , and
it auth orized Mother to ha v e phased

- in unsuper vised visitati on with Peter and Tamara
before they were placed with her on m onit ored return in J uly 2021

. See id. § 263 .403

. I n mid

- Ju ne, while Mary wa s living with Mo ther on mo nitored r eturn at the
faith

- based living sh elter , Mother reported that she an d Mary h ad been kidnapped

. Mo ther initially told t he Department that Husband had confronted her and M a ry at a

restaurant , that he had ki dn apped them at gunpoint , that h e had t a ken them to a hotel , that he ha d physically and sexually assaulted Mother , and t hat she had escaped the next morning and called the police

. She la ter ad mitted that this tale was a lie. 11 I n

ac tu ality, Mother had voluntarily ar ranged for he r and M a ry to go on an o uting with
Husband , and Mother t hen felt “ peer pressure[d] ” into j o inin g Husband at his h o tel

. Although she called the police from the hotel lobby at one point, she subsequently

10 Mother ’ s caseworker testi fi e d that , “[d] ue to [Isaac ’s] acting out sexually, a part of the plea deal that was being made

. . . on the criminal side, as well as with CPS, [was ] that he would be placed in a residential treatm ent center
. ”

11 M othe r also ad mitted that s he had asked M ary to c orro borate her lie

.6

returned to the room where she claimed that Husband h it her , choked her , and

attem pted to have sex with her while M a ry was s leep ing

. 12 After this incident, the trial court en tered an eme rgency order removing Ma r y fro m Mo ther ’ s custody , ending Ma ry ’ s m onit or ed retu rn , and canceling the upc oming
monitored retur n of P et er and Tamara

. T he Depart ment recommended termination
of the parent

– child rel ationsh ip between Mot her and Mary, P eter, and Tamara

. E
. Trial In Januar y 202 2 , the trial court conducted a bench trial on the Department ’ s pet ition to terminate

. Mother testifi ed

. She initially blamed the children ’ s sexual behavior on “ kids in
the neighborhood , ” b ut later in her testimony, she related that Isaac had been exposed
to porn at a young age an d that Mar y had told her tha t she had been inappropriate ly
touch ed by P e ter ’ s father and by Husband ’ s sister ’ s c hildren. Peter also con fided in
his f oster father that he had been inappropriately touched by “ his other dad. ”
M other admitted to her former drug us e , a nd she admitted that several of her
l ive

- in romantic pa rtn ers

— incl udi ng Hu sband and M a ry ’ s and P eter ’ s biological
father s
— had been abusive

. 13 Mothe r was still l iving at the fa ith

- base d shelter at the

12 The p olice return ed the following morning , and they arrested Husband and took Mother to the hospital

.

13 Mother insisted tha t , in e ac h instance, the children were “ [n]owhere ne ar around ” wh en t he violence oc curred

.7

time of trial, and she confirmed that she intended to stay there “ as long as they w[oul d] allow ” and that her c hil dren cou ld join her there

. According to Mother, she

was no lo ng er takin g drugs , she had held a job si nce July 2020 , and she had compl eted

n umerous l ife

- skills , parenting, counselin g, domestic violence, and addiction

- related
programs
. F
. Judgment
T he trial court f

o und that terminati on wa s i n the three y oungest children ’ s best
interest and that Mo ther h ad endange red the se three children by her conduct and by
their enviro nm ent
. See id. § 161.0 01 (b ) (1)( D ), (b)(1 ) (E) , (b)(2)

. Based on these
f indings, the cour t term in a ted Mother ’ s parental rights to M a ry, P e ter, and T a mara . II. Discu ssion
Co unsel filed a n Anders brief indicating that Mot her ’s a p peal is f riv olo us . See
Ander s v. Cal ifornia , 38 6 U.S. 738, 744 , 87 S. C t
. 1396, 1400 (1 967); see also In re K.M. , 98
S.W.3d 77 4, 77 6

– 7 7 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth , order) (holding An ders procedures appl y to par ental termination appeals ), d isp. on merit

s , 2

- 01

- 349

- CV, 2003 WL 2006583,
at *1

– 3 (Tex. App.

— Fort Wor th May 1, 2003, no pet.) (pe r cur i a m) (me m. op.)

. He

s tate d th at “ after thorough exa mination of the transcript and statement of facts, [he ] can find no errors warranting reversal that ca n be le gitimately supported by the
record. ” Counsel infor med Mother of her right to f ile a pro se response to th e Anders8

bri e f , 14 s e e A nders

, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400 , and Mother did so , fili ng two separate responses
. B ut Mot he r ’ s respons es do not identify any arguable grounds for appeal

. See
Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 82 6

– 2 7 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (explaining that, in
A nders r eview, the court of appeals “has two choic e s ” : it may either determine that arguable gr ounds for a ppeal exist and remand the case for new counsel or explain that
i t finds no arguable grounds for appeal )

. All of the issues Mother raises rely upon
f a cts and assertions outside of the record

— she refer ences documents that she
believes could have supporte d her case at trial , she refutes portions of the report e r ’ s record wi t h her own desc ript ion of even ts , and she a rgue s that she has recently improved her li festy

le

. Even if these is sues we re thoroughly briefed by new counsel,

see id. at 827 (

noting that, in Anders review, the court of appeals should not address the
merits of arguable issues raised in a pro se response until “ after the i ssues have been
bri e fed by new counsel ” ) , they could no t be meritorious because ou r re view is

con fin ed to the r ecord

. See In re M.S. , 115 S.W.3d 534, 546 (Tex . 2003) ( stating th at

“ this Court

— or any appellate court

— may only consider the record presented t o it,
and we cannot specula te on what might or might no t be in the mis sing portions of the
record ” ) ; In re O.H. , No. 02

- 21

- 00159

- CV, 2021 WL 4 228607, at *2

– 3 (Tex. App.

—

14 Cou nsel als o informed Mother of her right to req uest the appellate re cord, p rovided Mother with a motion for p ro se ac ce ss to the a ppe llate rec ord , and infor me d her of th i s court ’ s mailing address

. See Ke lly v. Stat e , 436 S.W.3d 313 , 319

– 20 (Tex. C rim . App. 2014)

.9

Fort W orth Sept. 16, 2021, no pet.) (me m. op.) ( reiterating that “ [a]n appellate court

ma y not consider ma tte rs ou tside the appellate record” wh en appellant i n restricted appeal f iled new affidav

i t att empt ing to show the involuntar iness of reli nquishment
affidav it (q uoting In re B.H. , No. 02

- 15

- 00155

- CV, 2015 WL 5 893626, at *4 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth Oct. 8, 201 5, no pe t.) (mem. op.) ) ). Mother ’ s is sues thus lack arguable merit. Cf. Garner v. State , 300 S.W.3d 763, 76 4

– 6 7 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) ( clarifying that , in Anders review, a court of appeals “ may explain why the issues have no arguable me rit , ” and holding th at lo wer court ’ s discussion o f te n points raised in
pro se response to Anders “benefitted the appellant by providing him with additional detail as to why the grounds [we] re not meritorious” )

. A lth ough Mothe r identifie s no non frivolous i ssues in respons e t o C ou nsel ’ s Anders bri ef

, we none th eless indepen dently re view Counsel ’s brief to ens u re that it
reflects t he conscientious evaluation of the recor d require d und er A nders , and we must inde pende ntly ex amine the record to determine if any arguable, nonfriv olo us gr ou nds for appeal ex ist. See In re C.J. , 501 S.W.3d 254, 255 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth 2016, pet. denied)

. Having c o mple ted both tasks, we conclud e that C ounsel ’s br ief meet s the Anders requir ements and t hat no ar guab le, non frivolous g round s for appea l e xist.
See A nders , 386 U.S. at 744 , 87 S. Ct. at 1 400 ; s ee al so I n r e M.G. , N o. 02

- 21

- 00 14 9

- CV,
2 021 WL 4319708, at *1

– 2 ( Tex. App.

— Fort Worth Sept. 23, 2021, no pet. ) ( mem. op.) (conduc ting similar Anders analysis and reach ing simi lar c on cl u sion ) ; In r e W.J. ,10

No. 02

- 20

- 00275

- CV , 2021 W L 62132, at * 1

– 2 (T ex. App.

— Fort Wo rth Jan. 7 , 20 21,

n o p et .) (mem. op.) ( similar )

. II I. C onclusion
We affirm the trial court ’s or der terminating the parent

– child relationship
between Mother and Mary, Peter, and Tamara, a nd we af firm it s app ointment of t he Department as per manent managing conservator of Isaac

. 15 /s/ Bonnie Sudderth
Bonni e Sudderth Chief Ju stice

De livered: September 22, 2022

15 Although C ouns el filed a motion to wi thdraw based on hi s co nclusion that Mother ’ s appeal is frivol ous , Counsel remain s appointed through p roceedings in t he Texa s Supreme Court unless he is relieved of his duties for good c ause . I n re P.M. , 520 S.W.3d 2 4, 2 7

– 28 (T ex. 20 16) (order)

.