In the
Court of Appeals
Second Appellate District of Texas
at Fort Worth
___________________________
No. 02-20-00389-CV
___________________________
IN THE INTEREST OF S.P., K.P., AND A.W., CHILDREN
On Appeal from the 231st District Court
Tarrant County, Texas
Trial Court No. 231-684596-20
Before Sudderth, C.J.; Birdwell and Bassel, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Sudderth
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Father W.P. appeals the trial court’s order appointing the
Department of Family and Protective Services as managing conservator and him as a
possessory conservator of his two children, S.P. and K.P.,1 with supervised-visitation
rights. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001. Father’s court-appointed appellate
counsel filed a brief seeking permission to withdraw. 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
meets 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. Father did not file 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 Father’s appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.
We deny Father’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
1
Child A.W. was subject to the same suit in the trial court below but is not
related to Father and Father’s appeal does not relate to A.W.
2
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, 582–83 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.]
2016, pet. 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: March 4, 2021
3