In the Interest of Z.T., K.T., and L.T., Children v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: August 14, 2025
• Docket: 02-25-00248-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth ___________________________ No. 02-25-00248-CV ___________________________

IN THE INTEREST OF Z.T., K.T., AND L.T., CHILDREN

On Appeal from the 324th District Court Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 324-742354-23

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

The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (Department) filed a

petition to terminate the parent–child relationship between Mother and her children,

Z.T., K.T., and L.T.1 The trial court terminated Mother’s parental rights under Family

Code Section 161.001(b) based on endangerment, constructive abandonment, failure

to follow court orders, and the child’s best interest. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann.

§ 161.001(b)(1)(E), (N), (O), (2). Mother timely appealed from the trial court’s order

of termination.2

Mother’s appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief asserting that the 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 the Anders requirements by presenting a professional evaluation of the record

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

Mother was given 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 has declined to file a

1 In a termination-of-parental-rights case, we use aliases for the names of the children and their parents. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 109.002(d); Tex. R. App. P. 9.8(b)(2). 2 In the same case, the trial court terminated the parental rights of the children’s alleged and unknown fathers, none of whom have appealed.

2 response but agrees with Mother’s appointed counsel that there are no non-frivolous

grounds to support the appeal.

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 also 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.). We also

consider the Anders brief itself. 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 counsel’s brief and the appellate record. 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 judgment. 3

3 Counsel filed a motion to withdraw but remains appointed in this appeal through proceedings in the supreme court unless otherwise relieved from her duties for good cause in accordance with Family Code Section 107.016. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 107.016; In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 (Tex. 2016).

3 /s/ Elizabeth Kerr Elizabeth Kerr Justice

Delivered: August 14, 2025