In the Interest of K.M., A.M., and K.W., Children v. the State of Texas

Opinion

In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth

___________________________

No. 02-26-00309-CV

___________________________

IN THE INTEREST OF K.M., A.M., AND K.W., CHILDREN

On Appeal from the 78th District Court Wichita County, Texas

Trial Court No. DC78-CP2025-1985-1

Before Kerr, Birdwell, and Bassel, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Birdwell

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Mother appeals from the trial court’s judgment terminating her parent–child relationship with her minor children and awarding permanent managing conservatorship of the children to the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services. See Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), (b)(2). We affirm.

Mother’s appointed appellate counsel has 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.). 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, Mother’s counsel certified to this court that she has (1) provided Mother with a copy of the Anders brief; (2) informed Mother of her right to file a pro se response and the deadline to do so; (3) provided Mother with instructions on requesting the appellate record; and (4) informed Mother of her right to ask counsel to file a petition for review on her behalf with the Texas Supreme Court should this court declare her appeal to be frivolous.

In lieu of a brief, the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services filed a response stating that it “will not file [an a]ppellee’s brief unless it deems a brief

3

necessary after the review of any pro se response or until this [c]ourt requests the Department to file such.” Mother did not file a response.

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.).

After careful review, we agree with Mother’s counsel that there are no arguable grounds for appeal in this case. We affirm the trial court’s judgment terminating Mother’s parental rights. Mother’s counsel remains appointed in this case through any proceedings in the Texas Supreme Court unless otherwise relieved of these duties. See Tex. Fam. Code § 107.016(2)(c); In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 (Tex. 2016) (order).

/s/ Wade Birdwell

Wade Birdwell

Justice

Delivered: July 23, 2026