In the Interest of A.S., J.S., S.S., and K.C., Children v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: May 22, 2025
• Docket: 02-24-00563-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth ___________________________ No. 02-24-00563-CV ___________________________

IN THE INTEREST OF A.S., J.S., S.S., AND K.C., CHILDREN

On Appeal from the 233rd District Court Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 233-497378-11

Before Birdwell, Wallach, and Walker, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Birdwell MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Mother appeals from the trial court’s final order (1) appointing

Mother and Father joint managing conservators of their child, A.S.,1 with Father

having the exclusive right to determine A.S.’s residence; and (2) ordering Father to

pay child support.2 Because there are no arguable grounds that might support the

appeal, we affirm.

I. Background

In October 2023, the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services

(TDFPS) initiated this proceeding to terminate the parent–child relationship between

Mother and A.S. A.S. was subsequently removed from Mother’s care, and in

November 2023, Father was named temporary possessory conservator of A.S. A.S.,

who was fourteen years old at the time, remained in Father’s care throughout the

pendency of the case and expressed a desire to continue living with Father.

Mother successfully completed the service plan developed for her by TDFPS.

At the time of trial, TDFPS no longer sought termination of Mother’s parental rights

and instead requested that Mother and Father be named joint managing conservators

1 In appeals from orders in suits affecting the parent–child relationship, we use initials or aliases for the names of the children and their parents. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 109.002(d); Tex. R. App. P. 9.8(b)(2). 2 Mother has four children: A.S., J.S., S.S., and K.C. Father is the father of A.S. and S.S. All four children were the subject of this suit and of the trial court’s order. Because Mother appeals only those portions of the trial court’s order pertaining to A.S., A.S. is the only child subject to this appeal. Father has not appealed and is not a party to this appeal.

2 of A.S. and that A.S. remain in Father’s home. After hearing the evidence, the trial

court appointed Mother and Father joint managing conservators of A.S., granted

Father the exclusive right to determine A.S.’s residence, and ordered Father to pay

offsetting child support to Mother in the amount of $170 per month. Mother timely

appealed.

II. Mother’s Appeal

On appeal, Mother’s appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief stating that

he conducted a professional evaluation of the record and concluded that there are no

arguable grounds to support an appeal and that the appeal is frivolous. See Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967). Counsel’s brief meets the

requirements of Anders by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and

demonstrating why there are no reversible grounds on appeal. See id., 87 S. Ct. at 1400;

see also In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 & n.10 (Tex. 2016) (order) (approving use of

Anders procedures in termination-of-parental-rights appeals); In re L.P., No. 02-20-

00292-CV, 2021 WL 126588, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Jan. 14, 2021, pet.

denied) (mem. op.) (applying Anders procedures in appeal from order appointing

grandparents joint managing conservators); In re E.L.W., No. 01-17-00546-CV, 2017

WL 5712545, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Nov. 28, 2017, no pet.)

(per curiam) (mem. op.) (“Anders procedures are appropriate in an appeal from a trial

court’s final order in a suit brought by [T]DFPS for the protection of a child, for

conservatorship, or for parental-rights termination.”); In re J.E.L., No. 04-15-00634-

3 CV, 2016 WL 1359354, at *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Apr. 6, 2016, pet. denied)

(mem. op.) (applying Anders procedures in appeal from order in which trial court did

not terminate parental rights but appointed grandmother as managing conservator

and parents as possessory conservators); In re K.M., 98 S.W.3d 774, 776–77 (Tex.

App.—Fort Worth 2003, order) (holding Anders procedures apply in termination

cases).

Further, counsel provided Mother with a copy of the Anders brief, informed

Mother of her rights to review the appellate record and to file a pro se appellate brief

in response, and provided Mother with a motion for access to the appellate record. See

Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 318–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). We too notified Mother

of her right to file a response, but she has not done so. TDFPS declined to reply to

the Anders brief.

When reviewing a brief that asserts an appeal is frivolous and that fulfills the

requirements of Anders, 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) (citing Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex.

Crim. App. 1991)). We also consider the Anders brief itself and 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.).

4 III. Conclusion

Having carefully reviewed the record and the Anders brief, we conclude that

there are no arguable grounds that might support Mother’s appeal; therefore, we agree

with counsel that the appeal is frivolous. 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). We affirm the trial court’s order.

Mother’s counsel did not file a motion to withdraw. He remains appointed in

this case through any proceedings in the Texas Supreme Court unless otherwise

relieved of his duties. See P.M., 520 S.W.3d at 27; In re J.W., No. 02-22-00161-CV,

2022 WL 15076379, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Oct. 27, 2022, pet. denied) (mem.

op. on reh’g).

/s/ Wade Birdwell

Wade Birdwell Justice

Delivered: May 22, 2025