in the Interest of T.F., a Child

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-14-00488-CV IN THE INTEREST OF T.F., a Child From the 288th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2011-PA-02356 Honorable David A. Canales, Judge Presiding Opinion by: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice Marialyn Barnard, Justice Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Delivered and Filed: February 18, 2015 AFFIRMED Appellants B.J. and T.A. appeal the trial court’s termination of their respective parental rights to their child T.F. The trial court found by clear and convincing evidence that B.J. and T.A. each “engaged in conduct or knowingly placed the child with persons who engaged in conduct which endangers the physical or emotional well-being of the child,” and each failed to comply with their respective court-ordered service plan. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 161.001(1)(E), (O) (West 2014). The court also found by clear and convincing evidence that terminating Appellants’ parental rights was in T.F.’s best interest. See id. § 161.001(2). Appellants’ court-appointed attorneys filed briefs containing professional evaluations of the record. In each brief, counsel asserts he diligently reviewed the record but could not find “any 04-14-00488-CV point of error upon which a non-frivolous appeal might be based.” Based on their respective reviews, each counsel concludes the record supports the trial court’s order. Counsels’ briefs meet the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). See In re D.D., 279 S.W.3d 849, 850 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2009, pet. denied) (applying Anders procedure in an appeal from termination of parental rights); In re D.E.S., 135 S.W.3d 326, 329 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, no pet.); In re RR, No. 04–03–00096–CV, 2003 WL 21157944, at *4 (Tex. App.—San Antonio May 21, 2003, no pet.) (mem. op.). Each counsel provided their client with a copy of the Anders brief and informed him or her of their right to review the record and file a pro se brief. Neither appellant requested a copy of the record nor filed a pro se brief. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). After reviewing the record, we agree the appeals are frivolous and without merit. The trial court’s order is affirmed; counsels’ motions to withdraw are granted. See Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 85–86 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no pet.); Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, no pet.). Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice -2-