in the Interest of L.B. and L.W., Children ( 2020 )

In the
Court of Appeals
Second Appellate District of Texas
at Fort Worth
___________________________
No. 02-19-00407-CV
___________________________
IN THE INTEREST OF L.B. AND L.W., CHILDREN
On Appeal from the 323rd District Court
Tarrant County, Texas
Trial Court No. 323-108951-18
Before Sudderth, C.J.; Gabriel and Kerr, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Kerr
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Mother appeals from the trial court’s judgment terminating her parental rights
to Lauren and Larry.1 See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. §§ 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), (O), (P), (2).
We affirm.
Mother’s appointed appellate counsel has moved to withdraw and has briefed
why Mother’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, order) (holding that this court applies Anders procedures in parental-
rights-termination cases), disp. on merits, No. 02-01-00349-CV, 2003 WL 2006583, at *3
(Tex. App.—Fort Worth May 1, 2003, no pet.) (mem op.) (per curiam).
Counsel’s brief meets Anders’s requirements by professionally evaluating the
record and showing why Mother has no arguable grounds to put forward on appeal.
We instructed Mother to contact us if she wanted an opportunity to review the
record and to file a response, but she did not respond. The Department notified us
that it agreed with Mother’s counsel that Mother has no arguable appellate grounds to
advance.
Once an appellant’s court-appointed attorney files a motion to withdraw on the
ground that the appeal is frivolous and if the motion fulfills the Anders requirements,
We use aliases to identify the children and refer to their mother simply as
1
Mother. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 109.002(d); Tex. R. App. P. 9.8(b)(2).
2
we must independently examine the record to determine if any arguable grounds for
appeal exist. See In re C.J., 501 S.W.3d 254, 255 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2016, pets.
denied).
When performing this analysis, we consider the record, the Anders brief, and
any pro se response. In re M.D., No. 02-18-00426-CV, 2019 WL 2047813, at *1 (Tex.
App.—Fort Worth May 9, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op.); In re D.D., 279 S.W.3d 849, 850
(Tex. App.––Dallas 2009, pet. denied).
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 and affirm the trial court’s judgment terminating Mother’s parental rights to
Lauren and Larry. See M.D., 2019 WL 2047813, at *2; D.D., 279 S.W.3d at 850.
Turning to counsel’s motion to withdraw, because counsel has not shown good
cause independent from her conclusion that the appeal is frivolous, we deny her
withdrawal motion as premature. See In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27–28 (Tex. 2016)
(order) (per curiam); C.J., 501 S.W.3d at 255. Thus, counsel remains appointed in this
appeal through proceedings in the supreme court unless otherwise relieved under
Family Code Section 107.016(3)(C). Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 107.016(3)(C); M.D.,
2019 WL 2047813, at *2; see P.M., 520 S.W.3d at 27–28 (“In [the Texas Supreme]
Court, appointed counsel’s obligations can be satisfied by filing a petition for review
that satisfies the standards for an Anders brief.”).
3
/s/ Elizabeth Kerr
Elizabeth Kerr
Justice
Delivered: April 9, 2020
4