in the Interest of P.C., a Child

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: December 22, 2022
• Docket: 02-22-00329-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth ___________________________ No. 02-22-00329-CV ___________________________

IN THE INTEREST OF P.C., A CHILD

On Appeal from the 231st District Court Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 231-698967-21

Before Birdwell, Bassel, and Womack, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Womack MEMORANDUM OPINION

I. INTRODUCTION

Appellant C.C. (Mother) appeals the trial court’s order terminating her parent–

child relationship with her son, P.C.1 The trial court found that the Department of

Family and Protective Services had proved three conduct-based grounds for

termination and that termination was in P.C.’s best interest. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann.

§ 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), (O), (2). The trial court awarded permanent managing

conservatorship of P.C. to the Department. Mother timely appealed.

II. BACKGROUND

Mother’s appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief asserting that he “has

been unable to identify any legally non-frivolous grounds for appeal” and that

Mother’s appeal is therefore frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744–45,

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 parental-rights

termination cases), disp. on merits, No. 2-01-349-CV, 2003 WL 2006583, at *2–3 (Tex.

App.—Fort Worth May 1, 2003, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op.). Counsel’s brief

meets the Anders requirements by presenting a professional evaluation of the record

and demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to advance on appeal.

1 P.C.’s parent–child relationship with his father was also terminated, but no appeal was filed on the father’s behalf.

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

and to file a pro se response, but she did not do so. The Department has agreed that

no meritorious grounds for appeal exist and thus has declined to file a responsive

brief.

III. DISCUSSION

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.); see Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We also

consider the Anders brief itself and, if filed, any pro se response. In re K.M., No. 02-

18-00073-CV, 2018 WL 3288591, at *10 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth July 5, 2018, pet.

denied) (mem. op.); see In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 408–09 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008)

(orig. proceeding).

We have carefully reviewed appointed appellate counsel’s Anders brief and the

appellate record. Having found no reversible error, we agree with counsel that this

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 P.C.

Mother’s counsel remains appointed in this appeal through proceedings in the

supreme court unless otherwise relieved from his duties for good cause in accordance

3 with Family Code Section 107.016. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 107.016; In re P.M.,

520 S.W.3d 24, 27–28 (Tex. 2016) (order).

IV. CONCLUSION

We agree with counsel that Mother’s appeal is frivolous; thus, we affirm the

trial court’s termination order.

/s/ Dana Womack

Dana Womack Justice

Delivered: December 22, 2022