Opinion
02-22-00367-CV
01-26-2023
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
Brian Walker Brian Walker Justice
Appellant Mother appeals from the trial court's judgment terminating her parental rights to her child, Z.G., 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. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), (N), (O), (b)(2). We affirm.
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 judgment.
Mother's appointed appellate counsel filed an Anders brief stating that there are no arguable grounds for appeal 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 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.
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).
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.