In the
Court of Appeals
Second Appellate District of Texas
at Fort Worth
___________________________
No. 02-21-00190-CV
___________________________
IN THE INTEREST OF F.H. AND I.H., CHILDREN
On Appeal from the 355th District Court
Hood County, Texas
Trial Court No. P2020008
Before Kerr, Birdwell, and Womack, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Womack
MEMORANDUM OPINION
The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (Department) filed a
petition to terminate the parent–child relationships between S.B. (Mother) and R.H.
(Father) and their children F.H. and I.H.1 After conducting a final hearing, the trial
court granted the petition, terminating Father’s and Mother’s parental rights under
Family Code Section 161.001(b) based on, among other grounds, endangerment and
the children’s best interests. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(b)(1)–(2). The trial
court awarded permanent managing conservatorship of both children to the
Department. Mother timely appealed from the trial court’s order of termination.2
Mother’s appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief asserting that her 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 parental-rights termination cases). The brief
meets the Anders requirements by presenting a professional evaluation of the record
and demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced on appeal.
Mother was provided with the opportunity to obtain a copy of the appellate record
1
In a termination-of-parental-rights case, we use aliases for the names of the
children and their parents. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 109.002(d); Tex. R. App.
P. 9.8(b)(2).
2
Father did not appeal the trial court’s termination of his parental rights.
2
and to file a pro se response, and she did so, but her pro se response presents no
arguable appellate grounds. The Department has declined to file a response.
When an Anders brief is filed, we must independently examine the appellate
record to determine if any arguable grounds for appeal exist. In re C.J., No. 02-18-
00219-CV, 2018 WL 4496240, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Sept. 20, 2018, no pet.)
(mem. op.); see also 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.). We also
consider the Anders brief itself and any pro se response. In re K.M., No. 02-18-00073-
CV, 2018 WL 3288591, at *10 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth July 5, 2018, pet. denied)
(mem. op.); see In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 408–09 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig.
proceeding).
We have carefully reviewed counsel’s brief, Mother’s pro se response, and the
appellate record. Finding no reversible error, we agree with counsel that this appeal is
without merit.3 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 Mother’s parental rights to F.H. and I.H.
3
Mother’s counsel set out five potential issues in the Anders brief, challenging
the trial court’s judgment terminating her parental rights under the endangering-
environment, court-order, and best-interest grounds, see Tex. Fam. Code Ann.
§ 161.001(b)(1)(D), (O), (2), and raising ineffective assistance of counsel and denial of
a jury trial. Mother’s pro se response included these last two issues, as well as
sufficiency-of-the-evidence and jurisdictional complaints. After a full review of these
potential issues and the record, we agree with counsel that there is no arguable basis
on which to reverse the trial court’s judgment.
3
Counsel filed a motion to withdraw, but the record does not show good cause
for withdrawal independent from counsel’s conclusion that the appeal is frivolous. See
In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27–28 (Tex. 2016); 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 unless otherwise relieved from
his duties for good cause in accordance with Family Code Section 107.016. See Tex.
Fam. Code Ann. § 107.016; P.M., 520 S.W.3d at 27.
/s/ Dana Womack
Dana Womack
Justice
Delivered: November 10, 2021
4
in the Interest of F.H. and I.H., Children
Combined Opinion