in the Interest of Z.G., a Child

Opinion

In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth ___________________________ No. 02-22-00367-CV ___________________________

IN THE INTEREST OF Z.G., A CHILD

On Appeal from the 322nd District Court Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 322-706389-21

Before Womack, Wallach, and Walker, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Walker MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Mother appeals from the trial court’s judgment terminating her

parental rights to her child, Z.G.,1 on the grounds that she had endangered Z.G.,

constructively abandoned Z.G., and failed to comply with her court-ordered service

plan, and that termination was in Z.G.’s best interest.2 See Tex. Fam. Code Ann.

§ 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), (N), (O), (b)(2). We affirm.

Mother’s appointed appellate counsel filed an Anders brief stating that there are

no arguable grounds for appeal3 and also filed a motion to withdraw as Mother’s

attorney of record. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 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 cases terminating parental rights). The

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

record and demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced on

appeal. Further, Mother’s counsel (1) provided Mother with a copy of the Anders

brief, (2) informed Mother of her rights to file a pro se response and to seek

1 We use initials to refer to the child. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 109.002(d); Tex. R. App. P. 9.8(b)(2).

The child’s father also had his parental rights terminated but did not appeal the 2

judgment. 3 Mother’s counsel purported to present one “arguable” ground for appeal but concluded that it failed on its merits. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744 (holding that legal point “arguable on [its] merits” is not frivolous).

2 discretionary review from the supreme court, and (3) advised Mother of her right to

access the appellate record and provided to her a form motion for effectuating that

purpose. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Mother

did not file a response, and the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services

declined to file a brief.

When an Anders brief is filed, we must independently examine the record to

determine if any arguable grounds for appeal exist. In re C.J., 501 S.W.3d 254, 255

(Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2016, pets. denied). Our examination should consider the

record, the briefs, and any pro se response. In re L.B., No. 02-19-00407-CV, 2020 WL

1809505, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Apr. 9, 2020, no pet.) (mem. op.).

After careful review, we agree with Mother’s counsel that there are no arguable

grounds for appeal in this case. We affirm the trial court’s judgment terminating

Mother’s parental rights. However, we deny the motion to withdraw filed by

Mother’s attorney because it does not show good cause for withdrawal. See In re P.M.,

520 S.W.3d 24, 27 (Tex. 2016) (order); C.J., 501 S.W.3d at 255. Thus, Mother’s

counsel remains appointed in this case through any proceedings in the supreme court

unless otherwise relieved of these duties. See P.M., 520 S.W.3d at 27.

/s/ Brian Walker

Brian Walker Justice

Delivered: January 26, 2023