In the Interest of A.A. and L.A., Children v. the State of Texas

Opinion

In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth ___________________________ No. 02-24-00103-CV ___________________________

IN THE INTEREST OF A.A. AND L.A., CHILDREN

On Appeal from the 467th District Court Denton County, Texas Trial Court No. 23-1633-467

Before Sudderth, C.J.; Kerr and Womack, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Womack MEMORANDUM OPINION

I. INTRODUCTION

In this ultra-accelerated appeal,1 Appellant A.J.A. (Father) appeals the trial

court’s order terminating his parent–child relationship with his children A.A. and L.A.

(the Children).2 The trial court found that the Department of Family and Protective

Services had proved three conduct-based grounds for termination and that

termination was in the Children’s best interest. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann.

§ 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), (O), (2). The trial court awarded permanent managing

conservatorship of the Children to the Department. Father timely appealed.

II. BACKGROUND

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,

order) (holding that Anders procedures apply in parental-rights termination cases), disp.

on merits, No. 2-01-349-CV, 2003 WL 2006583, at *2–3 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth

May 1, 2003, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op.). Counsel’s brief meets the Anders

1 See Tex. R. Jud. Admin. 6.2(a) (requiring appellate courts to dispose of appeal from a judgment terminating parental rights, so far as reasonably possible, within 180 days after notice of appeal is filed). 2 The Children’s parent–child relationship with their mother was also terminated, but no appeal was filed on the mother’s behalf.

2 requirements by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating

why there are no arguable grounds to advance on appeal.

We provided Father the opportunity to obtain a copy of the appellate record

and to file a pro se response, but he did not do so. The Department has declined to

file a responsive brief.

III. DISCUSSION

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 Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We also

consider the Anders brief itself and, if filed, 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) (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 Anders brief and the appellate record.

Having found 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 order terminating the parent–child relationship between Father and the

Children.

3 Father’s counsel did not file a motion to withdraw, and the record does not

show good cause for withdrawal independent from counsel’s conclusion that the

appeal is frivolous. See In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 (Tex. 2016) (order); In re C.J.,

501 S.W.3d 254, 255 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2016, pet. denied). Accordingly,

Father’s counsel remains appointed through proceedings in the Texas Supreme Court

unless otherwise relieved. See P.M., 520 S.W.3d at 27–28; see also Tex. Fam. Code

Ann. § 107.016(2)(C).

IV. CONCLUSION

We agree with counsel that Father’s appeal is frivolous; thus, we affirm the trial

court’s termination order.

/s/ Dana Womack

Dana Womack Justice

Delivered: June 13, 2024