### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-15-00481- CV

L. D. N., Appellan t

v. Texas Depart m ent of Fam ily and P rote ctive Service s, Appellee

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F TRAVIS CO UNTY, 200 TH JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. D-1 -F M- 14- 0002 79, H ONO RAB LE STEP HEN Y ELENOSK Y , JUDGE P RESIDING

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

L .D.N. app eals from the trial court’s order terminating his pare ntal rig hts to the minor children, Q.M.K.K., D.J .T.N., and Q.J .K. See Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001. I n support of its 1 petition to terminate L .D.N.’s paren t al rig hts, the Texas Depa rtment of Family and Protective Service s (the Depa

rtment) alleg ed t h at L

. D. N.: (1) constructively abandone d his children, see id. §161.001(b)( 1)(N) ; a

nd (2) failed to c omply with the terms of a court order that established the specific actions L .D.N. had to take to achie ve reunific ation with his children afte r their remova l for abuse or neg lect, see id. § 161.001(b)( 1)(O)

. The Depa rtment also alleg ed that termi n at i o n of
L .D.N.’s pare ntal rig hts was in the ch i l d ren’ s best interest. See id. § 161.001(b)( 2). Following a

As discussed i n more detail below, although the trial court’s order purports to termi n at e 1 L .D.N.’s rig hts with respe ct to all three children, the rec ord indicates that L .D.N. possessed pare ntal rig hts only with respe ct to D.J .T.N. The trial court’s order also terminated Q.J .K.’s pare ntal rig hts as fathe r of the three children, as well as the pare ntal rig hts of the childre n’s mother, L .C. Neither Q.J .K. nor L .C. has appea led the trial c ourt’s orde r.bench trial, the trial court found by clea r and convincing ev i d en ce that both statutory g rounds for terminating L .D.N.’s pa

renta l rig hts ex isted and that termination wa s in D.J .T.N.’s be st interest. On appea l, L .D.N.’s court-a ppointed attorney ha s f

iled an Anders brief informing this Court that she has made a diligent revie w of the appellate rec ord and can find no arg uable g rounds
to be advanc ed on appea l. See Anders v. Calif ornia , 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). The brief meets the require ments of Anders by prese nting a profe ssional evalua tion of the rec ord demonstrati n g why there are no arg uable g rounds to be advanc ed. See Taylor v. Texas Dep’ t of Protective & Regulatory Servs. , 160 S.W .3d 641, 646–47 (Tex. App.—Austin 2005, pet. denied) (apply ing Anders proce dure in appeal fr o m t ermination of pare ntal rig hts). Counsel has provided L .D.N. with a copy of the Anders brief along with a notice advising L .D.N. of his rig ht to examine the appellate rec ord and to file a pr o se brief

. No pro se br ief ha s been f iled. Upon rec eiving an Anders brief, we must co n d u ct a full examination of all of the
proce eding s to deter

mine whether the appea l is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988). We have revie wed the entire rec ord, incl u d i n g t h e A nders brief submitt ed on L .D.N.’s behalf , and we have found nothing that would arg uably support an appea l. We ag ree that the appea l is frivolous and without merit.

Ho wever, we note that althoug h the trial court’s termination order purport s t o terminate L .D.N.’s pare ntal rig hts with respe ct to all three children, neither the order nor the rec ord contains any finding s by the trial court conce rning L .D.N.’s rig hts with respe ct to Q.M. K. K. o r Q.J .K. Moreove r, nothing in the record sugg ests that L .D.N. eve r asse rted a ny rig hts with respec t
to Q.M.K.K. or Q.J .K. or that the Depa rtment soug ht termination of any rig hts L .D.N. may have had

2with respec t to Q.M.K.K. or Q.J .K. We the ref ore conclude that the trial cour t’s order err oneously purported to ter

minate L .D.N.’s r ights with re spect to Q.M.K.K. a nd Q.J .K. Acc ording ly , we modify the trial court’s order to eliminate the purported termination of L .D.N.’s rig hts with respe ct to Q.M.K.K. and Q.J .K. We aff irm the trial court’s order as modified and g rant c ounsel’s motion to withdraw as a ttorney of re cord.

__________________________________________ Scott K. Field, Just ice Be fore Chief J ustice Rose, Jus tices Pemberton a nd Field Modified and, a s Modified, Aff irmed Filed: Oc tober 16, 2015

3