In the
Court of Appeals
Second Appellate District of Texas
at Fort Worth
___________________________
No. 02-21-00429-CV
___________________________
IN THE INTEREST OF E.H. AND I.J., CHILDREN
On Appeal from the 324th District Court
Tarrant County, Texas
Trial Court No. 324-694920-21
Before Birdwell, Bassel, and Walker, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Walker
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant A.K. (Mother) appeals from the trial court’s final order terminating
her parental rights to E.H. (Ethan) and I.J. (Ira).1 See Tex. Fam. Code Ann.
§§ 161.001(b), 161.206. Because we find no arguable grounds for reversal, we affirm
the trial court’s final order of termination.
Appellee Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (the
Department) filed a petition seeking to terminate Mother’s parental rights, partially
based on the Department’s allegations that Mother had placed Ethan and Ira in
endangering conditions or surroundings; Mother had engaged in endangering
conduct; Mother had constructively abandoned the children, who had been in
conservatorship for at least six months; Mother had failed to comply with a court-
ordered service plan; and Mother had used a controlled substance in a manner that
endangered the children’s health or safety and failed to complete a court-ordered
substance-abuse treatment program. See id. § 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), (N), (O), (P). The
Department also alleged that termination would be in Ethan’s and Ira’s best interest.
See id. § 161.001(b)(2).
During the resulting bench trial, there was evidence that Mother had a history
of prostitution and had a total of seven children, some of whom had tested positive
for controlled substances at birth. Mother testified that she knew none of her
We use aliases to refer to the children and their family members. See Tex.
1
Fam. Code Ann. § 109.002(d); Tex. R. App. P. 9.8(b)(2).
2
children’s ages or where they lived. Mother also had a criminal history: a 2018 felony
conviction for theft of property valued at less than $2,500 with two prior convictions;
a 2017 felony conviction for theft of property valued at less than $2,500 with two
prior convictions; and a 2014 felony conviction for burglary of a habitation.
An investigator for the Department testified that Ira had tested positive for
opiates, methadone, and cocaine when he was born in early 2021. Mother also tested
positive for controlled substances as she had four prior times during the pregnancy.
Mother admitted to hospital staff that she was using cocaine and heroin. The
Department removed Ira from Mother’s care based on these positive drug tests and
also removed Ira’s older brother Ethan because of the risks to him based on Mother’s
drug use. Although Mother was placed under a service plan, which included weekly
visits with Ethan and Ira and required drug treatment, Mother wholly failed to
comply. Mother pointed out that she had never received information about drug-
treatment options; however, the Department’s caseworker testified that she was
unable to communicate with Mother after the initial contact because the number
Mother supplied was not a working number. At the time of trial, Ethan and Ira had
been placed with a foster family that hoped to adopt them. Ethan and Ira were well
adjusted and doing well in foster care. Their guardian ad litem recommended that
Mother’s parental rights be terminated, and the Department’s caseworker testified that
termination would be in Ethan’s and Ira’s best interest.
3
The trial court found by clear and convincing evidence that Mother had
knowingly placed or knowingly allowed Ethan and Ira to remain in endangering
conditions or surroundings; had engaged in endangering conduct or knowingly placed
Ethan and Ira with persons who engaged in such conduct; had constructively
abandoned the children; had failed to comply with a court-ordered service plan; and
had used controlled substances in an endangering manner and failed to complete an
ordered drug-treatment program. The trial court also found that the termination of
Mother’s parental rights was in Ethan’s and Ira’s best interest.
Mother’s appellate counsel has filed a brief stating that he has conducted a
professional evaluation of the record and concluded that there are no arguable
grounds to be advanced to support an appeal of the trial court’s termination order and
that the appeal is frivolous. Counsel, however, has not sought to withdraw from his
representation of Mother in this court. See generally In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 (Tex.
2016) (“[A]n Anders motion to withdraw brought in the court of appeals, in the
absence of additional grounds for withdrawal, may be premature.”). Counsel’s brief
presents the required professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there
are no arguable grounds for appeal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744,
87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967); see also P.M., 520 S.W.3d at 27 n.10 (recognizing Anders
procedures apply in termination of parental rights cases). Counsel provided Mother
with a copy of his brief. Further, counsel and this court informed Mother of her right
to request the record and to file a pro se response. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313,
4
318–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Mother did not respond. The Department has
waived its right to respond to the Anders brief.
Having carefully and independently reviewed the entire record and the Anders
brief, we conclude that there are no arguable grounds supporting the appeal; thus, we
agree with Mother’s appointed appellate counsel that Mother’s appeal is without
merit. See In re C.J., 501 S.W.3d 254, 255 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016). Accordingly, we
affirm the trial court’s final order of termination. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(a).
/s/ Brian Walker
Brian Walker
Justice
Delivered: April 28, 2022
5