Opinion
NO. 02-14-00366-CV
04-16-2015
IN THE INTEREST OF A.M., C.M., AND A.R., CHILDREN
FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2 OF PARKER COUNTY
TRIAL COURT NO. CIV-12-0817
MEMORANDUM OPINION
See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
Appellant Mother appeals the trial court's final order terminating her parental rights to her three children, A.M., C.M., and A.R.See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(1)(D), (E), (O), (2) (West 2014). Mother's court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw as counsel and a brief in support of that motion. In the motion, counsel avers that she has conducted a professional evaluation of the record and, after a thorough review of the applicable law, has reached the conclusion that there are no arguable grounds to be advanced to support an appeal of this cause and that the appeal is frivolous. Neither Mother nor the Department of Family and Protective Services filed a response.
We use aliases to refer to the parties to this appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 9.8(b)(2).
--------
Counsel's brief and motion meet the requirements of Anders v. California by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no reversible grounds on appeal and referencing any grounds that might arguably support the appeal. 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967); see 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-termination cases).
In our duties as the reviewing court, we must conduct an independent evaluation of the record to determine whether counsel is correct in determining that the appeal is frivolous. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); In re K.E.S., No. 02-11-00420-CV, 2012 WL 4121127, at *8 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Sept. 20, 2012, pet. denied) (mem. op. on reh'g). Only then may we grant counsel's motion to withdraw. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82-83, 109 S. Ct. 346, 351 (1988).
We have carefully reviewed the appellate record and appellate counsel's brief. We agree with counsel that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); see also In reA.B., 437 S.W.3d 498, 500 (Tex. 2014) (holding that an appellate court that affirms a judgment terminating parental rights need not detail the evidence when performing a factual sufficiency review). Therefore, we grant appellate counsel's motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court's final order terminating Mother's parental rights to A.M., C.M., and A.R.
/s/ Bill Meier
BILL MEIER
JUSTICE
PANEL: GARDNER, WALKER, and MEIER, JJ. DELIVERED: April 16, 2015