in the Interest of A.A., a Child ( 2018 )

COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
NO. 02-18-00092-CV
IN THE INTEREST OF A.A., A
CHILD
----------
FROM THE 233RD DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY
TRIAL COURT NO. 233-616179-17
----------
MEMORANDUM OPINION1
----------
Appellant G.A. (Father) appeals the trial court’s order terminating his
parental rights to his child A.A. The trial court found by clear and convincing
evidence that termination was appropriate under subsections (L), (N), (O), and
(Q) of family code section 161.001(b)(1) and under section 161.002(b) and that
termination was in A.A.’s best interest. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann.
§§ 161.001(b)(1)(L), (N), (O), (Q), (2), 161.002(b) (West Supp. 2017).
1
See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
Father’s court-appointed appellate attorney has filed a motion to withdraw
as counsel and a brief in support of that motion, averring that after diligently
reviewing the record, he believes that the 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 termination cases). The brief meets the
requirements of Anders by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and
demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced on appeal.
We gave Father the opportunity to file a response, and he did so.
As the reviewing appellate court, we must independently examine the
record to decide whether an attorney is correct in determining that the 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, no pet.). Having
carefully reviewed the record, the Anders brief, and Father’s pro se response, we
agree that the appeal is frivolous. We find nothing in the record that might
arguably support Father’s appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827
(Tex. Crim. App. 2005).
Therefore, we affirm the trial court’s order terminating the parent-child
relationship between Father and A.A. However, we deny the motion to withdraw
because it does not show “good cause” separate and apart from its accurate
determination that there are no arguable grounds for appeal. See In re P.M., 520
2
S.W.3d 24, 27 (Tex. 2016), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 1562 (2018); In re C.J., 501
S.W.3d 254, 255 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2016, pets. denied).2
/s/ Bill Meier
BILL MEIER
JUSTICE
PANEL: MEIER, PITTMAN, and BIRDWELL, JJ.
DELIVERED: July 12, 2018
2
“[A]ppointed 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