in the Interest of W.J., A.J., and J.J., Children

In the Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth ___________________________

No. 02-20-00275-CV ___________________________

IN THE INTEREST OF W.J., A.J., AND J.J., CHILDREN

On Appeal from the 231st District Court

Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 231-673192-19

Before Sudderth, C.J.; Birdwell and Womack, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Womack

MEMORANDUM OPINION In October 2019, the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (Department) filed its petition to terminate the parent–child relationship between W.J. (Father) and M.B. (Mother) and their children W.A.J, A.J. and J.J.1 After conducting a final hearing, the trial court found grounds to terminate Father’s and Mother’s parental rights under Family Code Section 161.001(b)(1). See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(b)(1). The trial court also found that the termination of Father’s and Mother’s parental rights was in the children’s best interest. See id. § 161.001(b)(2). Based upon those findings, the trial court terminated Mother’s and Father’s parental rights and awarded permanent managing conservatorship of all children to the Department.2 Father timely appealed from the trial court’s order of termination.3

On November 16, 2020, Father’s appointed appellate counsel filed a brief asserting that Father’s appeal is frivolous.4 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. Although provided with the opportunity to obtain a copy of the appellate record and file a pro se response, Father has not done so. The Department of Family and Protective Services has declined to file a response.

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 and any pro se response. 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. 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 Father’s parental rights to W.A.J., A.J., and J.J.

In counsel’s prayer for relief, he requested that he be allowed to withdraw from his representation of Father. 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); In re C.J., 501 S.W.3d 254, 255 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2016, pet. 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). See P.M., 520 S.W.3d at 27.

/s/ Dana Womack Dana Womack Justice

Delivered: January 7, 2021