In the
Court of Appeals
Second Appellate District of Texas
at Fort Worth
___________________________
No. 02-22-00062-CV
___________________________
IN THE INTEREST OF A.B., A CHILD
On Appeal from the 325th District Court
Tarrant County, Texas
Trial Court No. 325-621544-17
Before Kerr, Birdwell, and Bassel, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Bassel
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his child
A.B.1 See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(b)(1)(N), (O), (2).
Father’s appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief asserting that Father’s
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. Father was provided with the opportunity to obtain a copy of the appellate
record and to file a pro se response. Neither he nor the Department of Family and
Protective Services has filed 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)
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
(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 and the appellate record. Finding
no reversible error, we agree with counsel that this appeal is without merit. 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
judgment terminating Father’s parental rights to A.B.2
/s/ Dabney Bassel
Dabney Bassel
Justice
Delivered: June 9, 2022
2
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; In re P.M., 520
S.W.3d 24, 27 (Tex. 2016).
3