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

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: June 19, 2025
• Docket: 02-25-00031-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth ___________________________ No. 02-25-00031-CV ___________________________

IN THE INTEREST OF E.T., A.T., AND E.T., CHILDREN

On Appeal from the 231st District Court Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 231-745808-24

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

Father appeals from the trial court’s judgment terminating his parental rights to

his minor children on the grounds that Father had “executed before or after the suit

[wa]s filed an unrevoked or irrevocable affidavit of relinquishment of parental rights

as provided by Chapter 161” of the Texas Family Code and that termination was in

the children’s best interest. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(b)(1)(K), (b)(2). We

affirm.

Father’s appointed appellate counsel filed an Anders brief stating that the appeal

is frivolous and without merit. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 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 cases terminating parental

rights), disp. on merits, No. 2-01-349-CV, 2003 WL 2006583, at *1–3 (Tex. App.—Fort

Worth May 1, 2003, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op.). The brief meets the Anders

requirements by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating

why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced on appeal. Further, Father’s

counsel (1) provided Father with a copy of the Anders brief, (2) informed Father of his

right to file a pro se response, and (3) advised Father of his right to access the

appellate record and provided to him a form motion for effectuating that purpose. 1

1 Father’s counsel did not inform Father of his pro se right to seek discretionary review of our opinion should we declare his appeal frivolous, a function that an appointed lawyer who files an Anders brief must fulfill in a criminal appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 48.4; Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). An appointed

2 Father did not file a response, and the Texas Department of Family and Protective

Services declined to file a brief.

When an Anders brief is filed, we must independently examine the record to

determine if any arguable grounds for appeal exist. In re C.J., 501 S.W.3d 254,

255 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2016, pets. denied). Our examination should consider

the record, the briefs, and any pro se response. In re L.B., No. 02-19-00407-CV,

2020 WL 1809505, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Apr. 9, 2020, no pet.) (mem. op.).

After careful review, we agree with Father’s counsel that there are no arguable

grounds for appeal in this case. We affirm the trial court’s judgment terminating

Father’s parental rights. Father’s counsel remains appointed in this case through any

proceedings in the Supreme Court unless otherwise relieved of these duties. See Tex.

Fam. Code Ann. § 107.016; In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27–28 (Tex. 2016) (order).

/s/ Mike Wallach Mike Wallach Justice

Delivered: June 19, 2025

appellate attorney in a termination appeal has no such obligation, however, because his representation does not end in our court. See In re C.W., No. 02-21-00340-CV, 2022 WL 1155908, at *2 n.3 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Apr. 19, 2022, pet. denied) (mem. op.).