COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-14-00126-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF C.O. AND 

C.G., MINOR CHILDREN

----------

FROM THE 323RD DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

TRIAL COURT NO. 323-97614-J12

----------

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

----------

Appellant Mother appeals the trial court’s order terminating her parental 

rights to her two children.2

 The trial court found by clear and convincing 

evidence that Mother had engaged in conduct, or knowingly placed the children 

with persons who engaged in conduct, that had endangered their physical or 

emotional well-being and that Mother had knowingly placed or knowingly allowed 

 1

See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.

2

Neither the alleged father of C.O., nor the unknown father of C.G., 

appealed the order terminating their rights.
2

the children to remain in conditions or surroundings that had endangered their

physical or emotional well-being. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(1)(D), (E) 

(West 2014). The trial court further found that termination of Mother’s parental 

rights is in the children’s best interest. See id. § 161.001(2).

Mother’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw 

as counsel and a brief in support of that motion. In the motion, counsel avers 

that he has conducted a professional evaluation of the record and, after a 

thorough review of the applicable law, has reached the conclusion that there are 

no arguable grounds to be advanced to support an appeal of this cause and that 

the appeal is frivolous. Mother was given the opportunity to file a pro se brief, but 

she has not done so. The State declined to file a response.

Counsel’s brief and motion meet the requirements of Anders v. California

by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there 

are no reversible grounds on appeal and referencing any grounds that might 

arguably support the appeal. 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967); 

see In re K.M., 98 S.W.3d 774, 776–77 (Tex. App.––Fort Worth 2003, order) 

(holding that Anders procedures apply in parental rights termination cases), disp. 

on merits, No. 02-01-00349-CV, 2003 WL 2006583 (Tex. App.––Fort Worth 

May 1, 2003, no pet.) (mem. op.).

In our duties as a reviewing court, we must conduct an independent 

evaluation of the record to determine whether counsel is correct in determining 

that the appeal is frivolous. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex.
3

Crim. App. 1991); K.M., 2003 WL 2006583, at *2. Only then may we grant 

counsel’s motion to withdraw. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82–83, 109 S.

Ct. 346, 351 (1988).

We have carefully reviewed the appellate record and appellate counsel’s 

brief. We agree with appellate counsel that the appeal is wholly frivolous and 

without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the 

appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); 

In re E.M.M., No. 02-12-00259-CV, 2012 WL 6632785, at *9 (Tex. App.––Fort 

Worth Dec. 21, 2012, no pet.) (mem. op.). Therefore, we grant appellate 

counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment terminating 

Mother’s parental rights to C.O. and C.G.

PER CURIAM

PANEL: LIVINGSTON, C.J.; GARDNER and WALKER, JJ.

DELIVERED: August 14, 2014