In the
Court of Appeals
Second Appellate District of Texas
at Fort Worth
___________________________
No. 02-18-00245-CV
___________________________
IN THE INTEREST OF M.C., A CHILD
On Appeal from the 323rd District Court
Tarrant County, Texas
Trial Court No. 323-105954-17
Before Sudderth, C.J.; Gabriel and Kerr, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Sudderth
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her child,
M.C. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001 (West Supp. 2018). Mother’s court-
appointed appellate counsel filed a motion to withdraw as counsel and a brief in
support of that motion. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967); In
re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 (Tex. 2016), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 1562 (2018). Counsel’s
brief and motion meet the requirements of Anders v. California by presenting a
professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable
grounds for relief. See 386 U.S. at 741–42, 87 S. Ct. at 1399. Although given the
opportunity, Mother has not filed a response.
As the reviewing appellate court, we must independently examine the record to
decide whether counsel is correct in determining that an appeal in this case is
frivolous. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); In re
K.R.C., 346 S.W.3d 618, 619 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2009, no pet.). Having carefully
reviewed the record and the Anders brief, we agree with counsel that the appeal is
frivolous. See K.R.C., 346 S.W.3d at 619. We find nothing in the record that might
arguably support Mother’s appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s order.
We deny Mother’s counsel’s motion to withdraw in light of P.M. because the
brief does not show “good cause” other than counsel’s determination that an appeal
would be frivolous. See 520 S.W.3d at 27 (“[A]n Anders motion to withdraw brought
in the court of appeals, in the absence of additional grounds for withdrawal, may be
2
premature.”); In re A.M., 495 S.W.3d 573, 582–83 & n.2 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st
Dist.] 2016, pets. denied) (noting that since P.M. was handed down, “most courts of
appeals affirming parental termination orders after receiving Anders briefs have denied
the attorney’s motion to withdraw”). 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.
/s/ Bonnie Sudderth
Bonnie Sudderth
Chief Justice
Delivered: November 29, 2018
3