In the
Court of Appeals
Second Appellate District of Texas
at Fort Worth
___________________________
No. 02-22-00079-CV
___________________________
IN THE INTEREST OF P.G., A CHILD
On Appeal from the 231st District Court
Tarrant County, Texas
Trial Court No. 231-697136-21
Before Justice Wallach, Bassel, and Womack, JJ.
Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Mother appeals the trial court’s judgment terminating her parental rights to her
child after the trial court found that Mother had endangered the child, that Mother
had failed to comply with her court-ordered service plan, and that termination was in
the child’s best interest. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), (O), (b)(2).
We affirm.
Mother’s appointed appellate counsel filed an Anders brief stating that the
appeal is frivolous. 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 demonstrating why the appeal is wholly without merit. See In re D.A.S., 973
S.W.2d 296, 297 (Tex. 1998) (orig. proceeding). Further, Mother’s counsel
(1) provided Mother with a copy of the Anders brief, (2) informed Mother of her right
to file a pro se response, and (3) advised Mother of her right to access the appellate
record and provided her with a form motion to effectuate that purpose. See Kelly v.
State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Mother did not file a response,
and the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services 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
2
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, we agree with Mother’s counsel that the appeal is wholly without
merit.
Counsel remains Mother’s appointed attorney through proceedings in the
supreme court unless one of the conditions of Texas Family Code Section 107.016(2)
is met. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 107.016(2)(A)–(C); In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27
(Tex. 2016) (order); In re W.J., No. 02-20-00275-CV, 2021 WL 62132, at *2 (Tex.
App.—Fort Worth Jan. 7, 2021, no pet.) (mem. op.).
We affirm the trial court’s judgment terminating Mother’s parental rights.
Per Curiam
Delivered: June 9, 2022
3
in the Interest of P.G., a Child
Combined Opinion