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

NO. 03

- 21

- 00345

- CV

T. R. G. , Appellant

v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services , Appellee

FROM THE 201ST DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY NO. D
- 1

- FM
- 19

- 008354 , THE HONORABLE MAYA GUERR A GAMBLE , JUDGE PRESIDING

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

. R

. G . ( Mother ) appeal s from the district court ’ s order, following a bench trial, terminating h er parental rights to h er daughter A.M., born February 4, 2015 ( Daughter 1), son J.L

. , b orn January 31 , 20 1 6 ( Son ) , and daughter T.J., born November 14, 2019 ( Daughter 2)

. Counsel for Mother 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

. The case began i n November 2019, after a referral was made to the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (the Department) based on Daughter 2 ’ s meconium drug screen return ing positive for cocaine and marijuana

. James P i ckett, the intake supervisor for the ca s e , tes tified that when the Department first met with Mother , she acknowledged using marijuana “ on occasion ” during her pregnancy but “ adamantly denied using
cocaine

. ” However, Mother admitted that she ha d “ gone to a few parties during her pregnancy , ”2 and s he might have “ touched it at some point. ” Mother also acknowledged using ecstasy the night before she first met with the Department. B ased on the results of drug tests that Mother took at the beginning of the case , t he De partment suspected that Mother al so used methamphetamine

. Mot her d enied using methamphe tamine and claimed that if she t ested positive for that drug , it was because she had sex with a methamphetamine user
. The Department additionally had concerns regarding domestic violence between
Mot her a n d the children ’ s father (Father)

. 1 Terry Cook, Mother ’ s therapist during the case,
testified that Mother told him that t here had been “ a lot of domestic violence ” in their relationship and that “ [e] very time [Father] would get a little intoxicat ed h e w ou l d physically
abuse her. ” There was evidence presented that the two older children, prior to removal, might
ha ve ob served this violence , and multiple witnesses testified that the children exhibit ed aggressive behavior when they were first removed fro m M other ’ s care
. The domes tic violence continued during the case. Officer Christopher Gutierrez of the Austin Police Department testified that in December 2020, he responded t o a 911 call reporting a disturbance involving Mother and Fa ther near the apar tment complex where they were living at th e time

. When Officer Gut ierrez arrived at the scene, he observed that Mother was crying and bleeding from her nose and “ h ad some abrasions to her elbows and knees

. ” After interviewing both Mother and Father, Guti errez a rrested Father for assault

- family v i olence

. Additionally, at the beginning of the case , Mother had a boyfriend who she a cknowledged had
assaulted her “ once or twice

. ” There was conflicting evidence as to whether Mother ’ s relationship with this man had ended by the time of trial

.

1 Father ’ s parental rights to the children were also terminated in th e proceeding s below , but he is not a party to this appe a l.3 To obtain the return of the children, Mother had been ordered to complete various
services , including sub m itting to drug tests when requested by the Department, complet ing a substance

- abuse evalua tion, participat ing i n psycholog ical and psychiatric evaluations, complet ing nu r turing

- parent classes, engag ing in individual therap y, participat ing in inten sive

ou tpatient treatment for substance abuse, and taking domestic

- violence classes

. Department
caseworker Ariel Pierce testified that Mother had completed the psychological and psychiatric
evaluation s , attend ed the parenting classes , did her substance

- abuse evaluation , went to some individual therapy s essi ons and two of three domestic

- violence classes

. However, Mother di d

not succe ssfully complete her intensive outpatient treatment program , tested positive for illegal drugs in March and April 2020 , and failed to take any drug tes ts after that, miss ing 45 requested drug tests during the case

. Pierce testified that the chil dren had be en pl aced in a foster home and that the Department ’ s plan for the children was adoption by the foster placement. The foster mother testified that she wanted to adopt the children and described in detail the steps she had taken to
address the old er children ’ s behavioral problems

. The older children ’ s therapist testified that
the ir aggressive behavior had improved considerably since being placed with the foster family

. Sierra Moore, the CASA volunteer assigned to the case, testified that when sh e visited the children in their current placement , she observed them to be “ safe and happy , ” “ very active, ” a nd “ content wh ere they were. ” Moore also testified that the chil dren were bonded with
each other in their current placement , that the placement wa s a “ real l y g reat fit ” for the children,
and that the placem ent provided the children with stability and was able to meet the ir physical
and emotional needs

.4 At the conclusion of trial, the distr ict court foun d that termination o f Mother ’ s
pa rental right s was in the be st interest of the chil d ren and that Mother had : (1) engaged in conduct or knowingly placed the child ren with persons who engaged in conduct which endangered the physical or emotional well

- being of the child ren ; and ( 2 ) failed to comply with the provisions of a court order t hat specifically established the actions necessary to obtain the
return of the chil d ren who ha d been in the conservatorship of the Department for not less than
nine months as a resu lt of the child ren ’s removal from the par ent under Chapt er 262 for the
abuse o r ne glect of the child

. See Tex. F am. Code § 161.001(b)(1) (E), (O ) , (2)

. This appeal followed

. Court

- appointed cou nsel has filed an Ande rs b rief concluding that the appeal is
frivolous and without merit. See 386 U.S. at 744; In re P.M. , 520 S.W.3d 24, 2 7 & 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 constitutional right to counsel on app eal and counsel ’ s obligat ion not to p rose cute 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 no arguable grounds to be advanced on a ppeal. See
386 U.S. at 7 44; Taylor v . Te xas Dep ’ t of Protective & Regulator y Serv s. , 160 S.W.3d 641 , 646

- 47 (Tex. A pp.

— Austin 2005, pet. deni ed). Counsel has certified to this Cou rt that s he has provided her client with a copy of the Anders brief and inf ormed h er of h e r right to examine the
app ellate 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 the appeal is wholly frivolous. See P enson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75 , 80 (1988) ; Ta ylor , 160 S.W.3d at 647. After revi ewing the entire record and t he Anders brief5 submitted on Mother ’ s behalf, we have found nothing in the r ecord that might arguably support an appeal

. Our review included the dist rict court ’ s en dangerment finding , se e Te x. Fam. Code § 161.001(b)(1) (E ), an d we have found no issues that cou ld be raised on appeal wit h respect to
th at finding , see In re N .G. , 577 S.W.3d 230, 237 (Tex. 2019). We agree with counsel that the appeal is fr ivolous. Accor din gly, we affirm the dist rict court ’ s termination decree

.

__________________________________________ Gisela D. Triana , Justice
Be fore Justi ces G oodwin, Triana, and Ke lly
Affirmed
Filed: October 2 7, 2021