In the
Court of Appeals
Second Appellate District of Texas
at Fort Worth
___________________________
No. 02-20-00292-CV
___________________________
IN THE INTEREST OF L.P. AND R.P., CHILDREN
On Appeal from the 462nd District Court
Denton County, Texas
Trial Court No. 15-04712-431
Before Sudderth, C.J.; Birdwell and Bassel, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Sudderth
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Mother appeals the trial court’s order awarding permanent joint managing
conservatorship of her young children, L.P. and R.P.,1 to their paternal grandparents
and giving Mother possessory conservatorship subject to various restrictions. See Tex.
Fam. Code Ann. §§ 153.191–.193 (possessory conservatorship), § 263.405 (appeal of
final order in suit initiated by Department of Family and Protective Services).
Mother’s court-appointed appellate counsel has 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). Counsel’s brief and
motion meet the requirements of Anders 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. Neither Mother nor the Department of Family and
Protective Services has 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
1
At the time of the trial, L.P. was eight years old and R.P. was four years old.
2
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 judgment.
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. 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
premature.”); In re A.M., 495 S.W.3d 573, 582 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: January 14, 2021
3