Court Opinion

ID: 9412426
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-31 08:06:53.548555+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:41:18.864286
License: Public Domain

In the
            Court of Appeals
    Second Appellate District of Texas
             at Fort Worth
          ___________________________
               No. 02-23-00062-CV
          ___________________________

IN THE INTEREST OF C.C., A.D., & A.D., CHILDREN

       On Appeal from the 393rd District Court
               Denton County, Texas
            Trial Court No. 21-4852-393

      Before Sudderth, C.J.; Kerr and Walker, JJ.
      Memorandum Opinion by Justice Walker
                           MEMORANDUM OPINION

      Appellant Mother appeals from the trial court’s judgment terminating her

parental rights to her children, C.C., A.D., and A.D.,1 on the grounds that she

endangered the children and failed to comply with her court-ordered service plan, and

finding that termination was in the children’s best interest. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann.

§ 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), (O), (b)(2). We affirm.

      Mother’s appointed appellate counsel filed an Anders brief stating that there are

no arguable grounds for appeal and also filed a motion to withdraw as Mother’s

attorney of record. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 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 cases terminating parental rights).

      The brief meets the Anders requirements by presenting a professional

evaluation of the record and demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be

advanced on appeal. Further, Mother’s counsel (1) provided Mother with a copy of

the Anders brief, (2) informed Mother of her rights to file a pro se response and to

seek discretionary review from the supreme court, and (3) advised Mother of her right

to access the appellate record from our court and offered to provide her with a free

copy of the record upon written request. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–20

(Tex. Crim. App. 2014).

      1
       We use initials to refer to the children. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 109.002(d);
Tex. R. App. P. 9.8(b)(2).

                                           2
       In a June 2, 2023 letter to our court, Mother indicated that she intended to file

a response. So, on June 5, 2023, our clerk mailed a letter to her—at her last known

address—which included copies of the appellate record and her attorney’s Anders

brief.2 Given the accelerated nature of the proceedings, we informed Mother that her

response was due on June 26, 2023, and that the Department of Family and

Protective Services’ reply would be due twenty days after that. Mother did not file a

response, and the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services declined to file

a brief.

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

determine if any arguable grounds for appeal exist. In re C.J., 501 S.W.3d 254, 255

(Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2016, pets. denied). Our examination should consider the

record, the briefs, and any pro se response. In re L.B., No. 02-19-00407-CV, 2020 WL

1809505, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Apr. 9, 2020, no pet.) (mem. op.).

       After careful review, we agree with Mother’s counsel that there are no arguable

grounds for appeal in this case. We affirm the trial court’s judgment terminating

Mother’s parental rights.    However, we deny the motion to withdraw filed by

Mother’s attorney because it does not show good cause for withdrawal. See In re P.M.,

       On June 22, 2023, this letter was returned to our clerk with the note “Return
       2

to Sender – Insufficient Address – Unable to Forward – Return to Sender.” Our
clerk immediately contacted Mother’s attorney to verify Mother’s address. Her
attorney confirmed that the address on file with our court was also the last known
address that they had on file for Mother.

                                           3
520 S.W.3d 24, 27 (Tex. 2016) (order); C.J., 501 S.W.3d at 255. Thus, Mother’s

counsel remains appointed in this case through any proceedings in the supreme court

unless otherwise relieved of these duties. See P.M., 520 S.W.3d at 27.

                                                      /s/ Brian Walker

                                                      Brian Walker
                                                      Justice

Delivered: July 27, 2023

                                           4