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

NO. 03
- 21
- 00306
- CV

C. L. J. , Appellant

v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services , Appellee

FROM THE 98TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY NO. D
- 1
- FM
- 19
- 008449 , THE HONORABLE CATHERINE MA UZY , JUDGE PRESIDING

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

. L.J . (Father) appeal s from the district court ’ s order, following a bench trial, terminating his parental rights to his son C.J. , born March 10 , 20 14 ( Son ). Counsel for Father has file d a brief pursuant to Anders v. California , 3 86 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). We will affirm the district court ’ s termination decree

. At trial, the district court heard evidence that Father was facing criminal charges for sex trafficking. Bridget Cummiskey , a de t ective in the human trafficking unit of the Austin Police Department , testified that on December 18th, 2019 , she responded to a call of an in

progress report of human trafficking at a hotel in Austin. When Detective Cummiskey arrived at the hotel and spo k e to a clerk, she learned that a woman “ had been assaulted by someone in her hotel room, and she ran out half

- dres sed and ran down to the office and hid behind the clerk ’ s desk and told her to call 911

. ” The woman , who had visible injuries including “ swe l ling to her2 eye area, as if she had been punched, and scratches on her face and neck , ” was transported t o the poli ce department , where she was interviewed by another detective , while Cummiskey remained at the hotel to assist in apprehending Father. Cummi s key explained that her unit “ ended up having to call the SW AT team to come because [Father] wouldn ’ t come out of t he hotel room ” and was in possession of a firearm

. At some point durin g the standoff , anot her woman and Son exited the hotel room , while Fat h er remained inside

. Son was taken into CPS custody, and Father eventually came out of the ro om and was arrested a nd charged with the offense of continuous sex trafficking

. Cummisk ey further testi fied that following Father ’ s arrest, other

women came forw a rd to accuse Father of trafficking th em, that Father was facing similar trafficking charges in Harris County and Kenner , Louisiana , and that federal authorities were

“ looking at charging him federally for this whole multi

- state scheme, and possibly in Cal i fornia

. ” Department investigator Erin Mark testified that she had been assigned to the case in January 2020. Mark test ified that Son had bee n plac ed in a foster home at the beginning of the case and that he had remained in that same foster home throughou t the case

. Mark also testified that Son “ talk [ed] a lot about missing his dad, but he also talked a lot about wanting to be a part of his f oster family, being a part of the family and liking the brothers and sisters and the mom and dad. ” Mark testified t hat Son ha d positive interactions with the foster family

. Mark described the services that Fat her was ordered to complete, her efforts in helping Father complete those services, and the difficulty that Father experienced in completing his services becau se of his inc arcera tion . Mark further discussed the home studies that the Department had per formed on various relative s of Father and explained that the placements were not approved either because the relatives did not want to care for Son , were uncoopera tiv e with the Department , or were believed to be involved in criminal activit ies

.3 Department caseworker Kayla Rascon , who took over the case from Mark in October 2020 , provided similar testimony re garding the Department ’ s unsuccessful efforts to
f in d a r elati ve placement for Son, Father ’ s failure to complete his court

- ordered services, and
Son ’ s positive relationship with his foster family. Rascon also testified that she had no concerns regarding the foster placement but was “ very concerned about th e pen ding criminal charges ” against Father. Rascon also expressed concern that Son had been found at the hotel where Father was arrested. She explained,
Well, just with the allegations of the human sex trafficking, I mean, with the child being there at the ho tel i s a huge concern for the potential things that he could have wi tnessed, and the potential, you know, other people that were around, whether it be prostitutes or people looking for those kinds of services, but the child is there.

L icensed Professional Couns elor Cristi Copeland , who provided therapy for Son , testified that Son “ did not report any sexual trauma, no molestation, no observing of anything

. ” However, C opeland added that because Son had been placed in an environment where alleged sex traffick ing h ad occurred , she had “ definite concerns ” about Son ’ s possible “ exposure to inappropriate behaviors to sexual acts or sexual images ” that he might not have reported to her. Cop eland also testified that Son was doing wel l in his foster placement, that he wa s bonded with his foster parents, and that she had no concerns for Son ’ s safety in his foster home. Trista Allen, the CASA volunteer assigned to the case, testified that Son was doing well in his foster placement and that she did not have “ any serio us conc erns in regard to his fo ster care placement

. ” Allen explained that she had visited with Son at his foster home on multiple occasions, that it was a stable home where Son ’ s e motional and physical needs were being met , and that So n told her that he e njoyed spending time with his foster family

. Allen4 testified that CASA did not have any concerns regarding the foster parents ’ p aren ting abilities, that the foster parents were willing to adop t the child , and that CASA believed it was in Son ’ s best intere st for Father ’ s parental rights to be terminated so that the adopti on could proceed. Father testified and repeatedly invoked his Fifth Ame ndment privilege against self

- incrimination in response to questions by the Department concerning the criminal charges pendin g against him and the events at the hotel on the night that he was arrested

. Father , who was in jail in Louisiana on May 25 , 20 21, the date of his trial , claimed that he would be released from jail on July 27

. Father testified that upon his releas e, he p lanned on living with his grandmother in Tennessee. Father also testified that he loved Son , blamed the COVID

- 19 pandemic for his fail ure to complete his court

- ordered services , and cla imed that moving forward, he w ould comply with all court

- ordere d requi rements in order to have S on returned to him. At the conclusion of trial, the distr ict court foun d that termination o f F ather ’ s
pa rental rights was in the best interest of the child and that F ather had: (1) knowingly placed or knowingly allowed the child t o remain in conditions or surroundings which endanger ed the physical or emotional well

- be ing of the chi ld ; (2) engaged in conduct or knowingly placed the child with persons who engaged in conduct which endangered the physical or emotional well being of the child ; and (3) failed to comply with the provisions of a court order that specifically established the actions necessary to obtain the return of the chil d who ha d been in the conservatorship of the Department for not less than nine months as a resu lt of t he child’s removal from the parent under Chapter 262 for the abuse or neglect of the child

. See Tex. F am. Code § 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), (O )

. This appeal followed

.5 Court

- appointed cou nsel has filed an Ande rs b rief concluding that the appeal is friv olous a nd without merit. See 386 U.S. at 744; In re P.M. , 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 & n.10 (Tex. 2016) (per curiam) (appr oving use of Anders pr ocedure in appeals from termination of p aren tal rights because it “strikes an impor tant balance between the defendant ’ s constit utional right to counsel on appeal and counsel ’ s obligat ion not to prosecute frivolous appeals” (citations omitte d)). The brief m eets the requirem ents of Anders by pres enti ng a professional evaluation of the rec ord and demonstrating why there are n o argua ble grounds to be advanced on appeal. See
386 U.S. at 7 44; Taylor v. Texas Dep ’ t of Protective & Regulator y Serv s. , 160 S.W.3d 641 , 64 6

- 47 (Tex. A pp.

— Austin 2005, pet. deni ed). Counsel has certified to this Cou rt that he has provided h is client wi th a co py of the Anders brief and informed him of his right to examine the appellate record and to file a pro se b rief. No pro se brief has been filed. Upon receiving an Ande rs b rief, we must conduct a full examination of the record to determine whether t he appe al is wholly frivolous. See Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75 , 80 (1988); Taylor , 160 S.W.3d at 647. After revi ewing the entire record and t he Anders brief submitted on F at her ’ s behalf, we have found nothing in the r ecord that might arguably support an appeal

. Our review included the district court ’ s endangerment findings, see Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E ), an d we have found no issues that cou ld be raised on appeal wit h respect to those findings, see In re N .G. , 577 S.W.3d 230, 237 (Tex. 2019). We ag ree with counsel that the appeal is frivolous. Accordin gly, we affirm the district court ’ s termination decree

.

__________________________________________ Gisela D. Triana , Justice6 Before Justices Trian a, Kelly, and Smith Affirmed Filed: October 2 1 , 2021