In the
Court of Appeals
Second Appellate District of Texas
at Fort Worth
___________________________
No. 02-20-00349-CV
___________________________
IN THE INTEREST OF C.K., A CHILD
On Appeal from the 324th District Court
Tarrant County, Texas
Trial Court No. 324-679187-20
Before Sudderth, C.J.; Bassel and Walker, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Bassel
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Mother appeals from the trial court’s final judgment terminating her parental
rights to C.K. and appointing the Texas Department of Family and Protective
Services C.K.’s permanent managing conservator. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann.
§ 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), (O), (R), (b)(2). We affirm.
Mother’s court-appointed appellate attorney filed a motion to withdraw as
counsel and a brief in support of that motion, averring that after diligently reviewing
the record, he believes that the 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, order) (reasoning that Anders procedures apply in
noncriminal appeals when appointment of counsel is mandated by statute). 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. 1 Mother did not file a response although given the opportunity to do so. The
Department filed a letter stating that it would not be submitting a response to the
Anders brief.
As the reviewing appellate court, we must independently examine the record to
decide whether an attorney is correct in determining that the appeal is frivolous. See
Although counsel raised two possible grounds for appeal––sufficiency of the
1
evidence to support both the conduct and best-interest grounds––he explained in his
brief why they would not result in reversal.
2
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 that
Mother’s appeal is frivolous. We find nothing in the record that might arguably
support the appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).
But we deny the motion to withdraw because it does not seek withdrawal for any
reason other than counsel’s conclusion that there are no arguable grounds for appeal.
See In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 (Tex. 2016) (order); In re C.J., 501 S.W.3d 254, 255
(Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2016, pets. denied). Accordingly, counsel remains appointed
in this appeal through proceedings in the supreme court 2 unless otherwise relieved
from his duties for good cause in accordance with Family Code Section 107.016(3)(C).
Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 107.016(3)(C); see P.M., 520 S.W.3d at 27–28.
We affirm the trial court’s judgment.
/s/ Dabney Bassel
Dabney Bassel
Justice
Delivered: February 11, 2021
2
“[A]ppointed counsel’s obligations 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;
In re S.U., No. 02-19-00395-CV, 2020 WL 1949626, at *11 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth
Apr. 23, 2020, no pet.) (mem. op.).
3