In the Interest of L.G., K.M. and J.H., Children v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: April 5, 2024
• Docket: 02-23-00447-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth ___________________________ No. 02-23-00447-CV ___________________________

IN THE INTEREST OF L.G., K.M., AND J.H., CHILDREN

On Appeal from the 233rd District Court Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 233-642555-18

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

The trial court terminated Appellant Mother’s parental rights to her children

L.G., K.M., and J.H. after a jury trial. Mother’s rights were terminated based on the

jury’s unanimous findings on endangerment, failure to comply with provisions of a

court order required for the children’s return to her, and the children’s best interests.1

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

Mother’s appointed appellate counsel has filed an Anders brief2 in which she

concludes that, after a thorough review of the appellate record, the appeal is frivolous.

See 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.). Counsel’s brief meets the Anders

requirements by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and showing why

there are no arguable grounds to advance on appeal.

We provided Mother the opportunity to obtain a copy of the appellate record

and to file a pro se response, but she has not done so. The Department of Family

and Protective Services did not file a brief in response to the Anders brief but agreed

with Mother’s counsel that the appeal is frivolous in a letter to this court.

The trial court also terminated the parental rights of the children’s fathers. 1

The fathers have not appealed.

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967); see In re 2

K.M., 98 S.W.3d 774, 776–77 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2003, no pet.) (holding Anders procedures apply in termination-of-parental-rights cases), disp. on merits, No. 02-01- 00349-CV, 2003 WL 2006583 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth May 1, 2003, no pet.) (mem. op.).

2 When an Anders brief is filed, we must independently examine the appellate

record to determine if any arguable grounds for appeal exist. In re C.J., No. 02-18-

00219-CV, 2018 WL 4496240, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Sept. 20, 2018, no pet.)

(mem. op.). Having carefully reviewed counsel’s brief and the appellate record, we

agree with counsel that Mother’s appeal is without merit. See Bledsoe v. State,

178 S.W.3d 824, 827 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); In re D.D., 279 S.W.3d 849, 850 (Tex.

App.—Dallas 2009, pet. denied). Therefore, we affirm the trial court’s order

terminating the parent–child relationship between Mother and the children.

Mother’s counsel filed a motion to withdraw, but the record does not show

good cause for withdrawal independent from counsel’s conclusion that the appeal is

frivolous. See In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 (Tex. 2016) (order); In re C.J., 501 S.W.3d

254, 255 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2016, pet. denied). Accordingly, Mother’s counsel

remains appointed through proceedings in the Texas Supreme Court unless otherwise

relieved. See P.M., 520 S.W.3d at 27–28; see also Tex. Fam. Code. Ann.

§ 107.016(2)(C).

/s/ Brian Walker

Brian Walker Justice

Delivered: April 5, 2024