In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

___________________________

No. 02-22-00115-CV

___________________________

On Appeal from the 360th District Court

Tarrant County, Texas

Trial Court No. 360-699434-21

Before Bassel, Womack, and Wallach, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Womack

IN THE INTEREST OF N.R., A CHILD
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

I. INTRODUCTION

Appellant G.R. (Mother) appeals a judgment terminating her parent–child 

relationship with her daughter, N.R.1 The trial court found that the Department of 

Family and Protective Services had proved four conduct-based grounds for 

termination and that termination was in N.R.’s best interest. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. 

§ 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), (O), (P), (2). The trial court awarded permanent managing 

conservatorship of N.R. to the Department. Mother timely appealed. 

II. BACKGROUND

Mother’s appointed appellate counsel filed a brief asserting that no “legally 

non-frivolous grounds for appeal” exist and that Mother’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.3d 774, 776–77 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2003, no pet.)

(holding that Anders procedures apply in parental-rights termination cases). Counsel’s 

brief meets the Anders requirements by presenting a professional evaluation of the 

record and demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to advance on appeal. 

We provided Mother the opportunity to obtain a copy of the appellate record 

and to file a pro se response, but she did not do so. The Department has agreed that 

1N.R.’s parent–child relationship with her unknown father was also terminated,

but no appeal was filed on his behalf. 
3

no meritorious grounds for appeal exist and thus has declined to file a responsive 

brief. 

III. DISCUSSION

When an Anders brief is filed, we must independently examine the appellate 

record to determine if any arguable grounds for appeal exist. In re C.J., No. 02-18-

00219-CV, 2018 WL 4496240, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Sept. 20, 2018, no pet.) 

(mem. op.); see Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We also 

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

18-00073-CV, 2018 WL 3288591, at *10 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth July 5, 2018, pet. 

denied) (mem. op.); see In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 408–09 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) 

(orig. proceeding).

As part of our independent review of the record, we noted that no Native 

American tribe is listed or identified anywhere in the appellate record filed with this 

court. However, we questioned whether the trial court had made an express finding 

on the record that the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) did not apply to this 

proceeding and whether the entire appellate record had been filed. 25 U.S.C.A. 

§§ 1901–63. In response to our order, the trial judge signed findings indicating that

(a) the appellate record filed in this court is complete and (b) although the trial judge 

did not make an express finding on the record, the evidence in the appellate record

supports an implied finding that ICWA does not apply to these proceedings.
4

We have carefully reviewed not only these written findings, but also appointed 

appellate counsel’s Anders brief and the appellate record. Having found no reversible 

error, we agree with counsel that this appeal is without merit. See Bledsoe v. State, 

178 S.W.3d 824, 827 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); In re D.D., 279 S.W.3d 849, 850 (Tex. 

App.—Dallas 2009, pet. denied). Therefore, we affirm the trial court’s judgment 

terminating the parent–child relationship between Mother and N.R.

Counsel remains appointed in this appeal through proceedings in the supreme 

court unless otherwise relieved from his duties for good cause in accordance with

Family Code Section 107.016. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 107.016; In re P.M., 

520 S.W.3d 24, 27–28 (Tex. 2016) (order).

IV. CONCLUSION

We agree with counsel that Mother’s appeal is frivolous; thus, we affirm the 

trial court’s judgment.

/s/ Dana Womack

Dana Womack

Justice

Delivered: September 16, 2022