COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
NO. 02-17-00271-CV
IN THE INTEREST OF N.V., A.V.,
AND S.V., CHILDREN
----------
FROM THE 323RD DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY
TRIAL COURT NO. 323-103780-16
----------
MEMORANDUM OPINION1
----------
Appellant T.F. (Mother) appeals the trial court’s judgment terminating her
parental rights to children N.V., A.V., and S.V. After a bench trial, the trial court
found:
Mother “knowingly placed or knowingly allowed the children to
1
See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
remain in conditions or surroundings which endangere[d] the[ir]
physical or emotional well-being”;
Mother “engaged in conduct or knowingly placed the children with
persons who engaged in conduct which endanger[ed] the physical or
emotional well-being of the children”; and
“[T]ermination of the parent-child relationship between [Mother] and
the children” was “in the children’s best interest.”
See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), (2) (West Supp. 2017).
Mother’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed an Anders brief
stating that after thoroughly reviewing the record, he believes that any appeal by
Mother would be 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 termination cases). Mother’s appointed appellate counsel’s brief meets
the requirements of Anders by presenting a professional evaluation of the record
and demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds of error to be advanced
on appeal. See In re D.D., 279 S.W.3d 849, 850 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2009, pet.
denied). Although given the opportunity, Mother did not file a response to the
Anders brief. The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services,
Appellee, also filed no responsive brief.
As the reviewing appellate court, we must conduct an independent
evaluation of the record to decide whether counsel correctly determined that
Mother’s appeal is frivolous. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex.
Crim. App. 1991); In re K.R.C., 346 S.W.3d 618, 619 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2009,
2
no pet.). Having carefully reviewed the record and the Anders brief, we agree
with Mother’s appellate counsel that her appeal is frivolous and without merit.
See K.R.C., 346 S.W.3d at 619. We find nothing in the record that arguably
might support the appeal. See D.D., 279 S.W.3d at 850. Accordingly, we affirm
the trial court’s judgment.
Counsel’s motion to withdraw from representing Mother includes a request
for a brief extension to permit Mother “an opportunity to request the record on
appeal, and file a response and brief in this cause.” We afforded Mother that
opportunity in our October 3, 2017 letter, giving her fourteen days to notify this
court of her wish to examine the record and to file a pro se response to the
Anders brief. Further, counsel’s motion to withdraw from representing Mother
does not show cause for the withdrawal other than his conclusion that the appeal
is frivolous. We therefore deny the motion. See In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24,
27 (Tex. 2016); In re C.J., 501 S.W.3d 254, 255 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2016,
pets. denied).2
PER CURIAM
PANEL: PITTMAN, WALKER, and MEIER, JJ.
DELIVERED: December 7, 2017
2
The Supreme Court of Texas has held that in cases such as this,
“appointed counsel’s obligations can be satisfied by filing a petition for review
that satisfies the standards for an Anders brief.” P.M., 520 S.W.3d at 27–28.
3