in the Interest of R.W. and H.W., Children

Opinion

In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth

___________________________

No. 02-19-00408-CV

___________________________

IN THE INTEREST OF R.W. AND H.W., CHILDREN

On Appeal from the 322nd District Court Tarrant County, Texas

Trial Court No. 322-597027-16

Before Gabriel, Kerr, and Birdwell, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Birdwell

MEMORANDUM OPINION

R.W. and H.W.’s Mother appeals from the trial court’s final order terminating her parental rights after she signed a statutorily compliant voluntary affidavit of relinquishment.1 See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(b)(1)(K), (b)(2). We affirm.

Mother’s appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and a brief in support of that motion in which he asserts that Mother’s appeal is 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, no pet.) (holding that Anders procedures apply in parental-rights termination cases). The brief meets Anders’s requirements by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced on appeal. Although provided with the record, Mother has not filed a pro se response. The Department of Family and Protective Services has declined to file a brief.

Once an appellant’s court-appointed attorney files a motion to withdraw on the ground that the appeal is frivolous and fulfills the requirements of Anders, this court is obligated to undertake an independent examination of the record to determine if any arguable grounds for appeal exist. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Mays v. State, 904 S.W.2d 920, 922–23 (Tex. App.––Fort Worth 1995, no pet.). When analyzing whether any grounds for appeal exist, we consider the record,

The trial court did not make a finding on any other conduct-related ground.

3

the Anders brief, and any pro se response. In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 408–09 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding).

We have carefully reviewed counsel’s brief and the appellate record. Finding 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 Mother’s parental rights to R.W. and H.W.

Counsel did not file a motion to withdraw, and 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, 27–28 (Tex. 2016) (order); In re C.J., 501 S.W.3d 254, 255 (Tex. App.––Fort Worth 2016, pets. denied). Accordingly, counsel remains appointed in this appeal through proceedings in the supreme court unless otherwise relieved from his duties for good cause in accordance with family code section 107.016(3)(C). P.M., 520 S.W.3d at 27.

/s/ Wade Birdwell

Wade Birdwell

Justice

Delivered: February 6, 2020