In the Interest of L.B., K.S., K.B., and T.B., Children v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: July 10, 2025
• Docket: 02-25-00083-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth ___________________________

No. 02-25-00083-CV ___________________________

IN THE INTEREST OF L.B., K.S., K.B., AND T.B., CHILDREN

On Appeal from the 324th District Court Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 324-692507-20

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

In this ultra-accelerated appeal, 1 appellants Father and Mother appeal the trial

court’s order terminating their parent–child relationships with their children—K.S. (as

to Mother only) and K.B. and T.B. (as to both Mother and Father). 2 Two other fathers

of children subject to orders in this case, Richard (father of L.B.) and Keith (father of

K.S.) 3, did not appeal. The trial court found that the Department of Family and

Protective Services had proved four conduct-based grounds for termination of the

parent–child relationships between Mother and the children K.S., K.B., and T.B.; that

it had proved the same four conduct-based grounds for termination of the parent–child

relationships between Father and the children K.B. and T.B.; and that termination was

in the best interest of each child. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), (N),

(O), (b)(2).

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). 2 We use initials to refer to minors and to relationships to the minors and use fictitious names for others as necessary to protect the minors’ identities. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 109.002(d); Tex. R. App. P. 9.8(b)(2). 3 Four children were at issue at trial. The trial court issued an order of conservatorship of the oldest child, L.B., but did not terminate the parent–child relationships between L.B. and either Mother or Richard. Neither Richard nor Mother appealed the trial court’s conservatorship order as to L.B. Keith is the father of K.S. and did not appeal the termination of his parent–child relationship with K.S.

2 Both Mother’s and Father’s appointed counsel have filed Anders briefs indicating

that Mother and Father have no meritorious grounds for appeal. See Anders v. California,

386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967). Because our independent review of the

record compels us to agree with each parent’s counsel, we will affirm the trial court’s

judgment.

I. MOTHER’S ANDERS BRIEF

Mother’s appointed appellate counsel filed a motion to withdraw in addition to

the 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.). Counsel’s brief presents a professional evaluation of the

record, an analysis of potential appellate issues, and a demonstration of why there are

no meritorious grounds for reversal.

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.4 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.—

4 Counsel also provided Mother with a motion for pro se access to the appellate record and notified her of her right to seek review before the Supreme Court of Texas, should the court declare her appeal frivolous. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Counsel remains appointed through proceedings in the Texas Supreme Court unless she is relieved of her duties for good cause. In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27–28 (Tex. 2016)(order).

3 Fort Worth May 7, 2021, pet. denied) (mem. op.). We similarly informed Mother of

her rights. Mother has not requested access to the appellate record and did not file a

response. The State has declined to file a responsive brief.

Nonetheless, we must independently examine the appellate record to determine

if any arguable grounds for appeal exist. 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, 2023 WL 3251013, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth May 4,

2023, pet. ref’d) (mem. op.). Having done so, we conclude that Mother’s appeal is

frivolous. See K.W., 2023 WL 4289613, at *1 (conducting Anders analysis and reaching

same conclusion); K.A., 2023 WL 3251013, at *2 (same).

II. FATHER’S ANDERS BRIEF

Father’s appointed appellate counsel also filed a motion to withdraw with his

Anders brief. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; see also K.M., 98 S.W.3d at

776–77. Father’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

meritorious grounds for reversal.

Counsel served the brief on Father and informed him of his right to request the

record and to file a pro se response to the Anders brief.5 See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87

5 Counsel also provided Father with a motion for pro se access to the appellate record. See Kelly, 436 S.W.3d at 319–20. In our April 30, 2025 letter to Father, we provided him our mailing address. Father’s counsel did not inform Father of his pro se right to seek discretionary review of our judgment, a function that an appointed

4 S. Ct. at 1400; G.C., 2021 WL 1823341, at *1. We similarly informed Father of his

rights. Father has not sought to access the appellate record and did not file a response.

The State has declined to file a responsive brief.

Having independently examined the appellate record to determine if any arguable

grounds for appeal exist, we conclude that Father’s appeal is also frivolous. K.W., 2023

WL 4289613, at *1; see K.A., 2023 WL 3251013, at *1.

III. CONCLUSION

We agree with counsel that Mother’s and Father’s appeals are frivolous; thus, we

affirm the trial court’s termination order. We deny both motions to withdraw; each

counsel remains appointed in this case through any proceedings in the Texas Supreme

Court unless otherwise relieved of those duties. See P.M., 520 S.W.3d at 27–28; 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/ Bonnie Sudderth

Bonnie Sudderth Chief Justice

Delivered: July 10, 2025

lawyer who files an Anders brief must fulfill in a criminal appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 48.4; Kelly, 436 S.W.3d at 319. An appointed 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.).