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

____ _

_____________ _________ No. 02

- 21

- 00 431

- CV

__________ _

____ ____________

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

- 696061

- 21

Before Sudderth, C. J.; Wo mack and Wallach, JJ. M emorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Sudder th 

### I N THE 

### I NTEREST OF 

### C.C ., A 

### C HILD2 ME MORANDUM OPI N ION Alleged Father ap peals from the trial court ’s judgment terminating h is pa rent al rights to C.C. on the grounds that he constructively abandoned C.C. and failed to

c omply with h is court

- or dered service plan and that termination was in C.C. ’ s best
interes t
. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161 .001( b)(1)( N ) , (O ) , (b)(2)

. Becau se we find no arguable grounds for appeal , w e affirm. Appellee Texas Department of Family and Protec tive Services (the Department) filed a petition to terminate Alleged Father ’ s p arental rights to C.C. after
C.C. tested positive at birth for amp hetamines

. When the Depa rtment made initial

contact with C.C. ’ s m other (Mother) to investi gate the po sitive d rug test, Mother
identified appellant as C.C. ’ s father. 1 At the time, Mother did not have contact
informatio n for Alleged Father , but she did indicate that he was “ too unstable ” to care
for C.C. A Department investigator located Alleged Father who confir med that he could not provid e a stable envi ronm ent for C.C. C.C. was removed fro m the pare nts ’
care and was place d w ith a family member who was named C.C. ’ s tempora ry possessory conservator
. Alleged Father waived service of citation and did not file an a d missi on of paternity or a countercl aim for paternity under Chapter 160 of the Texas F amil y
C od e. See id

. § 161.002(b). He was ordered to follow a service plan that required him

1 The Department also petitioned for and obtained termi nat ion of Mother ’ s parental rights ; Mother is not a party to this appeal.3 to complete psychological and drug assessments, counseling, parenting cla ss e s , and a
battere r ’ s intervention prog ram
. A t th e b e nch t ria l, Department witnesses testified that Alleged F a ther did not complete any of his ordered services ; tested positive for methamphe ta mine s during
the case ; had not visited C. C. fo r at least fiv e mont h s prior to trial ; and effectiv ely ha d

n o relati onship with C.C. The testimony also showed that the temporary possessory

conservator had provided C. C. with a loving and stable e nvironment and hope d to adopt C.C. Alleged Fathe r appeared through his attorn e y but d id not personally
appea r at trial.
The trial court terminated Alleged Father ’ s parental rights to C.C. , f inding by clear and convincing evidence th at he had construct ively a ban doned C.C. and had failed to comply with a court

- ord ered service plan, a n d that termination was in C.C. ’ s best interest

. See id. § 161 .001( b)(1)( N ) , (O) , (b)(2)

. Alleged Fa ther ’ s appointed appellate counsel file d a m otion to withdraw a nd an
Anders b rief stating that there are no arguable grounds for appeal

. See Anders v.
C

a lifornia , 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967 ); see al so In re K.M. , 98 S.W.3d 774, 776

– 77 (Tex. App.

— Fort W orth 2 003 , no pet. ) (ho lding that Anders proced ures apply in cases terminating parental rights ). Th e brief meets the A nde rs requirements by presenting a professional evaluation of the record a nd by demons trating why th ere

are no ar guable g rounds to be advanced on appeal. See Anders , 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S.
Ct. at 1400

. Furt her, Alleged Father ’ s counsel certified to this court that she (1)4 p r ovided her c lient wit h co p ies o f t he motion to withdraw and the Anders brief , (2)
in formed him of h is right s to fi le a pro se response and to see k discretio nary rev iew by the sup reme court , and ( 3 ) advise d him of h is right to ac cess the appellate record

a nd provided to h im a for m moti on for effectuating that purpose

. See Kelly v. State , 436 S.W .3d 313 , 319

– 20 ( Tex. Crim. Ap p
. 2014). Alleged Fat her did not file a pr o se
response , and the Department d e clined to file a brie f.
When an Anders b rief is filed, we must independently examine the record to
determine if an y arguabl e grounds for appe al exist

. In re C.J. , 501 S.W .3d 254 , 255 (Tex. App.

— Fort Wort h 2016 , pet s . denied )

. Our examination should conside r the record, th e briefs, and any pro se response. I n re L. B

. , No. 02

- 19

- 00407

- CV, 2020 WL 1809505, at *1 (Tex. App.

— For t Worth Apr. 9, 20 20, no pet. ) (mem. op.).
After careful review of the record and the Anders brief , we agree wit h Alleged
Father ’ s appointed counsel that the re a re no arguable grou nds for appeal i n this case.
We affir m the trial court ’ s judgment terminating Alleged Father ’ s parental rights. However, w e de ny the mo tion to withdraw b ecause Alleged Father ’ s counsel did not
show good cause other than coun sel ’ s determination that an appeal wo u ld be
frivolous. See In re P.M. , 520 S.W.3 d 24, 27

– 28 (Tex. 2016); C.J. , 501 S.W. 3d at 255

. Thu s, Alleged Father ’ s counsel remai ns appoin ted in this case through any proceedings in the suprem e court unless otherw ise relieved of these duties

. See P.M. , 5 2 0 S.W.3d at 27.5 /s/ Bonnie Sudderth
Bonn ie Sudd er th Chief Justice
Delivered : April 28, 2022