In the
Court of Appeals
Second Appellate District of Texas
at Fort Worth
___________________________
No. 02-21-00431-CV
___________________________
IN THE INTEREST OF C.C., A CHILD
On Appeal from the 322nd District Court
Tarrant County, Texas
Trial Court No. 322-696061-21
Before Sudderth, C.J.; Womack and Wallach, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Sudderth
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Alleged Father appeals from the trial court’s judgment terminating his parental
rights to C.C. on the grounds that he constructively abandoned C.C. and failed to
comply with his court-ordered service plan and that termination was in C.C.’s best
interest. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(b)(1)(N), (O), (b)(2). Because we find
no arguable grounds for appeal, we affirm.
Appellee Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (the
Department) filed a petition to terminate Alleged Father’s parental rights to C.C. after
C.C. tested positive at birth for amphetamines. When the Department made initial
contact with C.C.’s mother (Mother) to investigate the positive drug test, Mother
identified appellant as C.C.’s father.1 At the time, Mother did not have contact
information for Alleged Father, but she did indicate that he was “too unstable” to care
for C.C. A Department investigator located Alleged Father who confirmed that he
could not provide a stable environment for C.C. C.C. was removed from the parents’
care and was placed with a family member who was named C.C.’s temporary
possessory conservator.
Alleged Father waived service of citation and did not file an admission of
paternity or a counterclaim for paternity under Chapter 160 of the Texas Family
Code. See id. § 161.002(b). He was ordered to follow a service plan that required him
1
The Department also petitioned for and obtained termination of Mother’s
parental rights; Mother is not a party to this appeal.
2
to complete psychological and drug assessments, counseling, parenting classes, and a
batterer’s intervention program.
At the bench trial, Department witnesses testified that Alleged Father did not
complete any of his ordered services; tested positive for methamphetamines during
the case; had not visited C.C. for at least five months prior to trial; and effectively had
no relationship with C.C. The testimony also showed that the temporary possessory
conservator had provided C.C. with a loving and stable environment and hoped to
adopt C.C. Alleged Father appeared through his attorney but did not personally
appear at trial.
The trial court terminated Alleged Father’s parental rights to C.C., finding by
clear and convincing evidence that he had constructively abandoned C.C. and had
failed to comply with a court-ordered service plan, and that termination was in C.C.’s
best interest. See id. § 161.001(b)(1)(N), (O), (b)(2).
Alleged Father’s appointed appellate counsel filed a motion to withdraw and an
Anders brief stating that there are no arguable grounds for appeal. See Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 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 cases terminating parental rights). The brief meets the Anders requirements
by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and by demonstrating why there
are no arguable grounds to be advanced on appeal. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S.
Ct. at 1400. Further, Alleged Father’s counsel certified to this court that she (1)
3
provided her client with copies of the motion to withdraw and the Anders brief, (2)
informed him of his rights to file a pro se response and to seek discretionary review
by the supreme court, and (3) advised him of his right to access the appellate record
and provided to him a form motion for effectuating that purpose. See Kelly v. State,
436 S.W.3d 313, 319–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Alleged Father did not file a pro se
response, and the Department declined to file a brief.
When an Anders brief is filed, we must independently examine the record to
determine if any arguable grounds for appeal exist. In re C.J., 501 S.W.3d 254, 255
(Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2016, pets. denied). Our examination should consider the
record, the briefs, and any pro se response. In re L.B., No. 02-19-00407-CV, 2020 WL
1809505, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Apr. 9, 2020, no pet.) (mem. op.).
After careful review of the record and the Anders brief, we agree with Alleged
Father’s appointed counsel that there are no arguable grounds for appeal in this case.
We affirm the trial court’s judgment terminating Alleged Father’s parental rights.
However, we deny the motion to withdraw because Alleged Father’s counsel did not
show good cause other than counsel’s determination that an appeal would be
frivolous. See In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27–28 (Tex. 2016); C.J., 501 S.W.3d at 255.
Thus, Alleged Father’s counsel remains appointed in this case through any
proceedings in the supreme court unless otherwise relieved of these duties. See P.M.,
520 S.W.3d at 27.
4
/s/ Bonnie Sudderth
Bonnie Sudderth
Chief Justice
Delivered: April 28, 2022
5