In the
Court of Appeals
Second Appellate District of Texas
at Fort Worth
___________________________
No. 02-22-00130-CV
___________________________
IN THE INTEREST OF T.B., A CHILD
On Appeal from the 231st District Court
Tarrant County, Texas
Trial Court No. 231-700012-21
Before Sudderth, C.J.; Wallach and Walker, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Walker
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Father appeals from the trial court’s judgment terminating his parental rights to
his child on the grounds that Father had constructively abandoned the child, had not
regularly visited or maintained significant contact with the child, had demonstrated an
inability to provide the child with a safe environment, and had failed to comply with
his court-ordered service plan; the Department had made reasonable efforts to return
the child to the father; and that termination was in the child’s best interest.1 See Tex.
Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(b)(1)(N), (O), (b)(2). We affirm.
Father’s appointed appellate counsel filed an Anders brief stating that the appeal
is frivolous and wholly without merit. 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 there are no arguable grounds to be
advanced on appeal. Further, Father’s counsel (1) provided Father with a copy of the
Anders brief, (2) informed Father of his rights to file a pro se response and to seek
discretionary review from the Supreme Court, and (3) advised Father 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). Father
1
The child’s Mother is deceased and not a party to this appeal.
2
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
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 Father’s counsel that there are no arguable
grounds for appeal in this case. We affirm the trial court’s judgment terminating
Father’s parental rights. Father’s counsel remains appointed in this case through any
proceedings in the Supreme Court unless otherwise relieved of these duties. See In re
P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 (Tex. 2016).
/s/ Brian Walker
Brian Walker
Justice
Delivered: October 6, 2022
3