## In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth

___________________________ No. 02

- 18

- 00237

- CV

___________________________

On Appeal from the 158th District Court Denton County, Texas Trial Court No. 14

- 09721

- 431

Before Pittman, J.; Sudderth, C.J.; and Kerr, J. Per Curiam Memorandum Opin ion 

### I N THE 

### I NTEREST OF 

### H.B., A 

### C HILD2 MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant Z.B. ( Father ) appeals the trial court’s judgment terminating h is
parent

- child relationship with h is daughter H

. B

. After a jury trial, the jury found that termination of the relationship was in H.B.’s best interest and tha t Father :

• knowingly placed or knowingly allowed

. . . [ H.B. ] to remain in conditions or surroundings which endangered [her ] physical or emotional well

- being .

. . [ ; ]

• engaged in conduct or knowingly placed [ H.B. ] with persons who engaged in conduct which e ndangered [ h er ] physical or emotional well

- being .

. . [ ; and ]

• failed to comply with the provisions of a court order that specifically established the actions necessary for [h im ] to obtain [ H.B. ’s] return

. . . , [ when s he had] been in the te mporary managi ng conservatorship of the Department of Family and Protective Services [TDFPS] for not less than nine months as a result of [h er] removal from [Father ] for abuse or neglect. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), (O), (2) (West Supp. 201 8 ). The trial court approved the findings and incorporated them into the order terminating
Father’s parental rights.
Father’s court

- appointed appellate counsel has filed an Anders brief stating that after thoroughly reviewing the record, he believes that any appea l by Father would be
frivolous. See Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 744

– 45, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967);
see also In re K.M. , 98 S.W.3d 774, 776

– 77 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth 2003, no pet.) (holding that Anders procedures apply in parental termination case s). Father’s appellate counsel’s brief meets the requirements of Anders by presenting a professional3 evaluation of the record and demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds of error to be advanced on appeal. See In re D.D. , 279 S.W.3d 849, 850 (Tex. App.

— Dallas 2009, pet. denied). Although given the opportunity, Father did not file a response to the Anders brief. TDFPS, Appellee, also filed no responsive brief. As the reviewing appellate court, we must conduct an independent evaluation
of the recor d to decide whether Father’s appellate counsel correctly determined that
the appeal is frivolous. See Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); In re K.R.C. , 346 S.W.3d 618, 619 (Tex. App.

— El Paso 2009, no pet.). Having carefully rev iewed the record and the Anders brief, we agree with Father’s appellate
counsel that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. See K.R.C. , 346 S.W.3d at 619. We find nothing in the record that arguably might support the appeal. See D.D. , 279 S.W.3d at 850. Accordingly, we af firm the trial court’s judgment.
Father’s appellate counsel request s that we refer this matter back to the trial court “at the appropriate time” to consider “a request . . . to withdraw from further representation. ” As his appellat e counsel recognizes, Father must have counsel until his appeals are exhausted: “ [A] ppointed counsel’s obligations can be satisfied by filing a petition for review that satisfies the standards for an Anders brief.” In re P.M. , 520 S.W.3d 24, 27

– 28 (Tex. 2016) ; see In re C.J. , 501 S.W.3d 254, 255 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth 2016, pets. denied). We therefore deny appellate counsel’s request. See
P.M. , 520 S.W.3d at 27

.4 Per Curiam
Delivered: December 20, 2018