COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
NO. 02-17-00436-CV
IN THE INTEREST OF A.R., A
CHILD
----------
FROM THE 323RD DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY
TRIAL COURT NO. 323-104047-16
----------
MEMORANDUM OPINION1
----------
A.R.’s father appeals from the trial court’s judgment terminating his
parental rights.2 See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(b)(1)(D–E), (O), (b)(2)
(West Supp. 2017). We affirm.
1
See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2
Mother filed an affidavit relinquishing her rights and did not appeal from
the trial court’s judgment.
Father’s appointed appellate counsel has filed a combined motion to
withdraw and brief in support of that motion in which he asserts that Father’s
appeal is 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 termination of
parental rights cases). The brief meets the requirements of Anders by presenting
a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating why there are no
arguable grounds to be advanced on appeal. Father filed two responses to the
Anders brief, and the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services filed a
brief.
Once an appellant’s court-appointed attorney files a motion to withdraw on
the ground that the appeal is frivolous and fulfills the requirements of Anders, this
court is obligated to undertake an independent examination of the record to
determine if any arguable grounds for appeal exist. See Stafford v. State, 813
S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Mays v. State, 904 S.W.2d 920, 922–
23 (Tex. App.––Fort Worth 1995, no pet.); see In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 &
nn.9–10 (Tex. 2016) (order), cert. denied, 2018 WL 1786045 (2018). When
analyzing whether any grounds for appeal exist, we consider the record, the
Anders brief, and any pro se response. In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 408–09
(Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding).
We have carefully reviewed counsel’s brief, the arguments in Father’s pro
se responses, the Department’s brief, and the entire appellate record. Finding no
2
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 order terminating Father’s parental rights to A.R.
Because counsel does not show good cause for withdrawal independent
from his conclusion that the appeal is frivolous, we deny the motion. See P.M.,
520 S.W.3d at 28;3 In re C.J., 501 S.W.3d 254, 255 (Tex. App.––Fort Worth
2016, pets. denied).
PER CURIAM
PANEL: BIRDWELL, J.; SUDDERTH, C.J.; and WALKER, J.
DELIVERED: May 24, 2018
3
The supreme court has held that in cases such as this, “appointed
counsel’s obligations [in the supreme court] can be satisfied by filing a petition for
review that satisfies the standards for an Anders brief.” P.M., 520 S.W.3d at 27–
28.
3
in the Interest of A.R., a Child
Combined Opinion