in the Interest of L.C., a Child

Opinion

In the

Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth

___________________________

No. 02-19-00130-CV

___________________________

IN THE INTEREST OF L.C., A CHILD

On Appeal from the 325th District Court Tarrant County, Texas

Trial Court No. 325-601094-16

Before Sudderth, C.J.; Kerr and Birdwell, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Sudderth

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his child, L.C.

See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001. Father’s court-appointed appellate counsel filed a motion to withdraw as counsel and a brief in support of that motion. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967); In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 (Tex. 2016). Counsel’s brief and motion meet the requirements of Anders v. California by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for relief. See 386 U.S. at 741–42, 87 S. Ct. at 1399. Father filed a pro se response. The Department of Family and Protective Services did not file a response.

As the reviewing appellate court, we must independently examine the record to decide whether counsel is correct in determining that an appeal in this case is frivolous. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); In re C.J., 501 S.W.3d 254, 255 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2016, pet. denied). Having carefully reviewed the record, the Anders brief, and Father’s pro se response, we agree with counsel that the appeal is frivolous. See C.J., 501 S.W.3d at 255. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support Father’s appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s order.

We deny Father’s counsel’s motion to withdraw in light of P.M. because the brief does not show “good cause” other than counsel’s determination that an appeal would be frivolous. See 520 S.W.3d at 27 (“[A]n Anders motion to withdraw brought

3

in the court of appeals, in the absence of additional grounds for withdrawal, may be premature.”); In re A.M., 495 S.W.3d 573, 582–83 & n.2 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2016, pet. denied) (noting that since P.M. was handed down, “most courts of appeals affirming parental termination orders after receiving Anders briefs have denied the attorney’s motion to withdraw”). The supreme court has held that in cases such as this, “appointed counsel’s obligations [in the supreme court] can be satisfied by filing a petition for review that satisfies the standards for an Anders brief.” P.M., 520 S.W.3d at 27–28.

/s/ Bonnie Sudderth

Bonnie Sudderth

Chief Justice

Delivered: August 22, 2019