## 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 DISTR ICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY TRIAL COURT NO. 323

- 97614

- J12

---------- 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1

- --------- 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 e ngaged in conduct, that had endangered the ir 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 Te x. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(1)(D), (E) (West 201 4 ). 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 with draw 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 gro unds 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 requirem ents 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 (196 7);

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.) (me m. 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 c ounsel 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.). Theref ore, we grant appellate counsel’ s motion to with draw and affirm the trial court’s judgment terminating Mother’ s parental rights to C.O. and C.G. PER CURIAM PANEL: LIVINGSTON, C.J.; GARDNE R and WALKER, JJ. DELIVERED: August 14, 2014