COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
NO. 02-13-00371-CV
IN THE INTEREST OF I.M.G. AND
M.L.G., CHILDREN
----------
FROM THE 323RD DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY
----------
MEMORANDUM OPINION 1
----------
Appellant G.L.G., Jr. (Father) appeals from the trial court’s order
terminating his parental rights to his daughters I.M.G. and M.L.G. After a bench
trial, the trial court found by clear and convincing evidence that Father had
• knowingly placed or knowingly allowed the children to remain in conditions
or surroundings which endangered their physical or emotional well-being;
1
See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
• engaged in conduct or knowingly placed the children with persons who
engaged in conduct which endangered the children’s physical or emotional
well-being;
• failed to comply with the provisions of a court order that specifically
established the actions necessary for him to obtain the return of the
children, who had been in the permanent or temporary managing
conservatorship of the Department of Family and Protective Services
(TDFPS) for not less than nine months as a result of their removal from the
parents under Chapter 262 for abuse or neglect; and
• constructively abandoned the children, who had been in the permanent or
temporary managing conservatorship of TDFPS for not less than six
months and: (1) TDFPS made reasonable efforts to return the children to
Father; (2) he did not regularly visit or maintain significant contact with the
children; and (3) he demonstrated an inability to provide the children with a
safe environment. 2
The trial court also found that termination of the parent-child relationship would
be in the children’s best interests. 3
Father’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw
and an Anders brief in support, stating that after diligently reviewing the record,
he believes that any appeal by Father would be frivolous. 4 Father’s appointed
appellate counsel’s brief meets the requirements of Anders by presenting a
professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating why there are no
2
See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(1)(D)–(E), (N)–(O) (West Supp.
2013).
3
See id. § 161.001(2).
4
See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967).
2
arguable grounds of error to be advanced on appeal. 5 Although given the
opportunity, neither Father nor TDPFS filed a response to the Anders brief.
As the reviewing appellate court, we must conduct an independent
evaluation of the record to decide whether counsel is correct in determining that
Father’s appeal is frivolous. 6 Having carefully reviewed the record and the
Anders brief, we agree with Father’s appellate counsel that his appeal is frivolous
and without merit. We find nothing in the record that arguably might support the
appeal. 7
Accordingly, we grant Father’s appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw and
affirm the trial court’s judgment.
PER CURIAM
PANEL: DAUPHINOT, J.; LIVINGSTON, C.J.; and GARDNER, J.
DELIVERED: March 6, 2014
5
See In re D.D., 279 S.W.3d 849, 850 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2009, pet.
denied).
6
See id.; see also Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App.
1991).
7
See D.D., 279 S.W.3d at 850; see also Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824,
826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).
3