## In the Court of Appeals Seco nd Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Wo rth

____ _______________________ No. 02

- 22

- 00115

- CV

___________________________

On Appeal f

rom the 360th District Court Ta rrant Coun ty, Texa s Trial Court No. 360

- 699434

- 21

Before Bassel , Womack , and Wallach, JJ. Memorandum O pinion by Justice Womack 

### I N THE 

### I NTEREST OF 

### N.R., A 

### C HILD2 MEMORANDUM OPINION
I. I NT RODUCTION
A ppellant G. R. (Mother) ap peal s a judgment terminating her paren t

– child
relationsh ip with her d aughter , N. R. 1 The trial court found that the Department of Family an d P rotective Services had proved four conduct

- based grou nds for termination and that termination was in N. R. ’ s best i nter est. See Tex. Fam . Code Ann. § 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), ( O), (P), (2)

. The trial court awarded permanent managing
conservatorsh ip of N.R. to the Department

. Mother timely appealed.
II. BACKGROUND
Mother ’ s appointed appellate counsel filed a brief a sser ting tha t no “ legally

non

- frivolous ground s for appeal ” e xist and that Mothe r ’ s appeal is therefore
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.3 d 774, 776

– 77 (Tex. App.

— Fort Wo rt h 20 03, no p et.) (holding that Anders procedures apply in parental

- rights termin ation cases). C ounsel ’ s brief meets the Ander

s r equirements by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating why there are no arguable gro unds to adv anc e on appeal.
We provided Mother the opportunity to obtain a copy o f the appellate record and to file a pro se response, but she did not do so. The Department has agreed that

1 N .R. ’ s parent

– c hild relationshi p with her unknown fathe r was also terminated, but no appeal was filed on his behalf.3

no meritorious ground s for appeal exis t and thus has declined to file a respons ive brief

. III. DISCUSSION
When an Anders brief is filed, we must independently examine the appellat e record to determine if any arguable grounds for appeal exist. In re C.J. , No. 02

- 18

- 002 19

- CV, 2018 WL 4496240, at *1 (T ex. App.

— Fort Worth Sept. 20, 2 018, no pet.) (mem. op.) ; see Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991)

. We also

c onsider the Anders brief itself and , if filed, any pro se response. In re K.M. , No. 02

- 18

- 00073

- CV, 201 8 WL 3288591, at * 10 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth July 5 , 20 18, pet. denied) (mem. op.) ; see In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d 403, 408

– 09 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceedi ng)

. As part of our independent review of the record, we noted that no N ative American trib e is listed or identified anywhere in the appellate record filed with this court. However, we questioned whether the trial cou rt h ad made an e xpres s finding on the record that the Ind ian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) did not apply to th is proceeding and whe ther the entire appellate record had been fil ed

. 25 U .S.C.A. § § 1901

– 63

. In response to our ord er, t he trial j udge signed findin gs indicat i ng that (a) t he appellate record filed in this court is com plete and (b) a lthough the trial judge did not make an e xpress finding on the record, the evidence in t he appe llate record supports an implied finding th at ICWA doe s not apply to the se proceedings

.4

We have carefully reviewed not only th ese w ritten findin gs, but also appointed appellate counsel ’ s Anders brief and the appell ate record

. Having found no reversible error, we agree with cou nsel that t his appeal is with out merit. See Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 827 (Tex. Crim. Ap p. 2005 ) ; I n re D.D. , 279 S.W.3d 849, 850 (Tex. App.

— Dallas 2009, pet. denied)

. Therefore, we affirm the trial court ’ s judgment
termin ating the parent

– child r elationship between Mothe r an d N.R

. Counsel remains appointed in this appeal through proceedings in the supr eme court unless otherwise relieved from his duties for good cause in accordance with Family Code Section 107.016

. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 107.01 6 ; In re P. M. , 520 S.W.3d 24, 27

– 28 (Tex. 2016) (order)

. IV. CONCLUSION We agree with counsel that Moth er ’ s appeal is frivolou s; th us , we affirm the

t rial court ’ s judgment.
/s/ Dana Womack
Dana Womack Justice Delivered: September 16, 2022