### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03
- 19
- 00699
- CV

C. L., Appellant

v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee

FROM THE 98TH DISTRI CT COURT OF TRAVIS C OUNTY NO. D
- 1
- FM
- 18
- 002157 , THE HONORABLE SCOT T H. JENK IN S, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

T he trial court held a bench trial and, at the conclusion, signed a final decree terminating C.L. ’ s parental rights to his three

- year - old son , “ Charlie

. ” 1 The court found that
C.L

. had engaged in conduct or knowing ly placed Charlie with persons who engaged in conduct that endangered hi s physical or emotional well

- being and had failed to comply with the provisions of a court order that specifically established t he actions necessary to obtain the re turn of the child

. See Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001(b)(1)(E), (O). The court also found that termination of C.L. ’ s parental rights was in Charli e ’ s best interest. See i d . § 161.001(b)(2). The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services sought c u sto dy of Ch arlie , who was about a year and one

- half old at the time , after receiving m ult iple referral s

1 We refer to appellant by his init ials and to the child by an alias

. See Tex. Fam. Code § 109.002(d); Tex. R. App. P. 9.8. The trial court also terminated the mother ’ s parental rights , but she did not fil e a notice of appeal.2 alleging domestic violence between C.L. and Charlie ’ s mothe r , that the parents were using illegal substances around the child, and that the child was le ft unsupervis ed. C.L. was arrested after one fight in which the mother alleged that C.L. had strangled her until she blacked out. Several weeks later, the mother was also arrested for a probation violation , and the Department placed Charlie with his grea t

- a unt. While this case was pending, C.L. pled guilty to assa ulting Charlie ’ s mother , although at the hearing he denied having committed the offense and testified that he only pled guilty because he was “ trying to get out to get to my son. ” C.L. had a h is t ory of arrests and convictions for possession of marijuan a , unlawful carrying of a weapon, bail jumping, criminal mischief , and driving without a license and was on probation for possession of methamphetamines until 202 5. During the p endency of the pro cee ding , C.L. tested positive for mariju ana, meth amp hetamines, and cocaine

— his last positive test was about two months before the final h earing

— an d missed numerous other drug tests

. Although C.L. asserted that he had diff iculty finding transportation or s erv ice providers, the evidence was undisputed that he missed multiple counseling , d rug - treatment , and batterer

- intervention appointments , resulting in his unsuccessful discharge from those programs, and was un employed at the time of the hearing. Charlie ’ s g reat

- aunt testified that Charlie was thriving in her care, that the night terrors he was having when he first came to her had abated, and that she could provide him with a stable, loving h ome. She hoped to adopt him and had taken the classes necessary for tha t to

occur. A Department caseworker testified that Charlie had stopped hitting and biting at day care and was doing well in his great

- aunt ’ s care. He testified that a lthough C.L. loves his son a nd that his visitations with Charlie had been “ wonder ful , ” t he Department was seeking termination because C.L. had continued using drugs throug hout the proceeding , risking a rrest each time, and3 had not followed through with his court

- ordered obligations or shown he could provide the stability Charlie needed. T he c aseworker said, “ He made a couple steps towards showing the department that, you know, he was trying. But as far as [C.L .] completing anything and seeing things through, he hasn ’ t. ”
C.L. ’ s court

- a ppointed appellate counsel has filed a brief discu ssi ng t h e record, the elements that the Texas Department of Family and Protec tive Services was required to prove , and the standard of review and concluding that C.L . has no arguable grounds for appeal and that his appeal is wholly frivolous. See Anders v. Ca lifo r nia , 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967); High v.
State , 573 S.W.2d 807, 811 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); see also Taylor v. Texas Dep ’ t of Protective & Regulatory Servs. , 160 S.W.3d 641, 646

- 47 (Tex. App.

— Austin 2005, pet. denied) (applying Anders procedure in ap pea l fr o m termination of parental rights). Counsel , who has stated that he will file a motion to withdraw once C.L. ’ s app ellate remedies have been exhausted, see In re
P.M. , 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 (Tex. 2016) , has certified to this Court that he provided C.L

. a c opy of the brief, along with a notice advising him of his right to examine the appellate record and to file a pro se brief. 2 No pro se brief has been f ile d. We have thoroughly reviewed the record and counsel ’ s brief, and we agree with counsel ’ s asses sme nt that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. We therefore affirm the trial
court ’ s final decree of termination.

2 A letter sent by th is Court to C.L. was returned as refused and unabl e to f orward , a nd C. L. has not contacted the Court to provide a n address or other contact information. However, c ounsel has pr ovided this Court with proof that the brief and counsel ’ s letter explaining how and wh en to fil e a pro se brief was delivered to C.L. a t the Travis Count y Corre ctional Comple x.4 ________________________________ ____ _

_

____ Jeff Rose, Chief Justice Before Chief Justice Rose, Just ices Triana and Smith Affirmed Filed: February 12, 2020