In the Interest of E.J., a Child v. the State of Texas

• Court: Texas Court of Appeals, 2nd District (Fort Worth)
• Decided: February 26, 2026
• Docket: 02-25-00617-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth ___________________________ No. 02-25-00617-CV ___________________________

IN THE INTEREST OF E.J., A CHILD

On Appeal from the 233rd District Court Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 233-759303-24

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

In this ultra-accelerated appeal,1 Mother appeals from the judgment of the trial

court terminating her parental rights as to her child E.J.2 The trial court found by clear

and convincing evidence that the Department of Family and Protective Services had

proved three conduct-based grounds to terminate the parent–child relationship

between Mother and E.J. and that termination of the relationship was in E.J.’s best

interest. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), (O), (b)(2).

Mother’s counsel has filed an Anders brief indicating that Mother has no

meritorious grounds for appeal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S. Ct.

1396, 1400 (1967). Mother’s appointed appellate counsel filed a motion to withdraw

with Mother’s Anders brief. See id.; see also In re K.M., 98 S.W.3d 774, 776–77 (Tex.

App.—Fort Worth 2003, order) (holding Anders procedures apply to parental

termination appeals), disp. on merits, 2003 WL 2006583, at *1–3 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth

May 1, 2003, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op.). Mother’s counsel’s brief presents a

professional evaluation of the record, an analysis of potential appellate issues, and a

demonstration of why there are no arguable grounds for reversal.

1 See Tex. R. Jud. Admin. 6.2(a), reprinted in Tex. Gov’t Code Ann., tit. 2, subtit. F app. (requiring appellate court to dispose of appeal from judgment terminating parental rights, so far as reasonably possible, within 180 days after notice of appeal is filed).

We use initials to refer to minors and relationships to those minors for others 2

as necessary to protect the minor’s identity. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 109.002(d); Tex. R. App. P. 9.8(b)(2).

2 Counsel served the brief on Mother and informed her of her right to request the

record and to file a pro se response to the Anders brief. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744,

87 S. Ct. at 1400; In re G.C., No. 02-20-00368-CV, 2021 WL 1823341, at *1 (Tex.

App.—Fort Worth May 7, 2021, pet. denied) (mem. op.). Counsel also provided

Mother with a motion for pro se access to the appellate record and this court’s mailing

address. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Mother’s

counsel informed Mother of her pro se right to seek discretionary review of our

judgment. See id. at 319.

On January 8, 2026, Mother filed a document titled “Motion to Dismiss (or

Other Relief) for Violation of Due Process Rights.” The motion does not allege error

in the trial court’s order of termination. On January 13 and 14 and on February 11,

Mother filed three additional documents—a letter, a motion, and a petition for

reinstatement of rights, and a second letter with accompanying photographs—none of

which alleges error in that order. The State filed a letter stating that it did not intend to

file a brief.

As the reviewing court, we must independently examine the record to decide

whether counsel is correct in determining that an appeal in this case is frivolous. Having

carefully reviewed the appellate record, the Anders brief, and Mother’s pro se responses

to determine if any arguable grounds for appeal exist, we conclude that Mother’s appeal

is frivolous. In re K.W., No. 02-23-00082-CV, 2023 WL 4289613, at *1 (Tex. App.—

Fort Worth June 30, 2023, no pet.) (mem. op.); see In re K.A., No. 02-23-00014-CV,

3 2023 WL 3251013, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth May 4, 2023, pet. ref’d) (mem. op.);

In re L.C., No. 02-19-00130-CV, 2019 WL 3955190, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth

Aug. 22, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op.). We find nothing in the record that might arguably

support Mother’s appeal and deny her pro se motions. Thus, we affirm the trial court’s

termination order as to Mother.

We deny Mother’s counsel’s motion to withdraw; counsel remains appointed in

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

of those duties for good cause. See In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27–28 (Tex. 2016) (order);

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/ Brian Walker

Brian Walker Justice

Delivered: February 26, 2026