### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-13-00483- CV

J. R., Appellant

v. The Texas Departm ent of Fam ily and P rote ctive Service s, Appellee

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F TO M GREEN CO UNTY, 340 TH JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. C-1 2-0 056- CP S, H ONO RAB LE JAY K . WEATH ERB Y , JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N Appellant J .R. appea ls from the district court’s order terminating her pare ntal rig hts to her two daug hters, K.A.A. and A.L .A., who wer e ten and seven y ears old, respe ctively , at the time of the termination hear ing. J .R.’s court-a ppointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and an Anders brief, concluding th at t h e ap p eal is frivolous and without merit. See Anders

v. Calif ornia , 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967); see also Taylor v. Texas Dep’ t of Protective & Regulatory Servs. , 160 S.W .3d 641, 646-47 (Tex. App.—Austin 20 05, pet. denied)

. Counsel’s brief meets the require ments of Anders by prese nting a profe ssional evaluation of the rec ord and demonstrating that there are n o argua

ble g rounds for appea l. See Anders , 386 U.S. at 744; Taylor , 160 S.W .3d at 646-47. J .R. was provided with a copy of counsel’s brief and advised of her rig ht to examine the appellate rec ord and to file a pro se br ief. No pr o se brief has bee n filed. I n its termination decr ee, the district court found by clea r and convincing evidenc e that termination of J .R.’s par en t al ri gh t s was in the best interest of the child and that J .R. had: (1) knowing ly place d or knowingl y al l o we d the children to rema in in conditions or surrounding swhich endang er the phy sical or emotional well-be ing of the children; (2) eng ag ed in conduct or

knowing ly place d the children with persons who eng ag ed in conduct which endang ers the phy sical

or emotional well-be ing of the children; (3) constructively abandone d the children; and (4) failed to comply with the provisions of a court order that specific ally established the actions nece ssary for the pare nt to obtain the return of the children. See Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001(1)( D), (E), (N), (O), (2).

The above finding s wer e made following a trial befor e the bench. J .R

. d i d n ot persona lly appea

r at trial but was repr esente d by counsel. The sole wi t n ess to testify was Melissa Cano, the Child Protective Service s (CPS) case worke r assig ned to the case . Cano testified that the Texas Depa

rtment of Family and Protective Service s (the Depa rtment) had rec eived a repor t that J .R., w ho had ear lier been diag nosed with c atatonic schizophrenia, was not taking medication to treat her illness and was not providing appropr iate car e for her children. Acc ording to Cano, the home in which J .R. and her ch i l d re n we re living “wa s falling apar t,” had no running water or elec tricity , contained insufficient food to fee d the children, was infested with insects and mice, and had magg ots gr owing inside the ref rig erator. In the opi nion of t he Department, the home was not habitable for y oung children. The children wer e subsequently remove d from the home and place d in the car e of the children’ s paterna l gr andmother.

Cano further tes t ified that the Depa rtment had prepa

red a service plan so that J .R. might obtain reunific ation with her children. The plan includ ed require ments that J .R. underg o a substance- abuse assessment and a psy cholog ical, psy cho-soc ial evaluation. Acc ording to Cano, J .R. did not complete these require ments. Cano also explained that J.R. had attended some counseling sessions as require d but had made “no improvement” during those sessions and eventua lly stopped attending them. J .R. also eventually stopped visiting her

children and contac ting the Depa rtment.

2As a result of the lack of communication from J .R., Cano did not know wh er e J

. R

. was curr ently

living, whe ther she w as working , or whe ther she ha d the pre sent ability to support her c hildren. Reg arding the best interest of the children, Cano testified that the children rema ined place d with their parental gra ndmother and that the children are “doing g reat in the hom e.” Cano added, “The y ’re comforta ble there

. They ’re happy there .” Cano also testified that the g randmother wanted to a dopt the children, that adoption would provide the children with be nefits and subsidies from the State, including Medica id, and that termination of J .R.’s pare ntal rig hts and adoption by the g randmother was in the best interest of the children. Cano acknow ledg ed that the children missed their mother and “still want[ed] to see their mom.” Howeve r, Cano also testified that even if J .R.’s pare ntal rig hts wer e terminated, the g randmother could still arr ang e and supervise visitation betwee n J .R. and the children. At the conclusion of trial, the attorney ad litem for the children and the Court Appointed S pecia l Advocate for the children also ag ree d that t ermination of J .R.’s pare ntal rig hts was in the be st interest of the c hildren.

Having revie wed the rec ord and counsel’s brief, we ag ree that the appea l is frivolous. We find nothing in the rec ord that might arg uably s up p o rt the appea l. See Anders , 386 U.S. at 741-44; Taylor , 160 S.W .3d at 646-47. We aff irm the di strict court’s or d er o f t er m i n ati on and g rant c ounsel’s motion to withdraw.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Bob Pembe rton, J ustice Be fore Chief J ustice Jones, J ustices Pemberton a nd Field Affir med Filed: Nove mber 27, 2013 3