In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth ___________________________ No. 02-24-00103-CV ___________________________ IN THE INTEREST OF A.A. AND L.A., CHILDREN

On Appeal from the 467th District Court Denton County, Texas Trial Court No. 23-1633-467

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

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Womack MEMORANDUM OPINION I. INTRODUCTION In this ultra-accelerated appeal,1 Appellant A.J.A. (Father) appeals the trial court’s order terminating his parent–child relationship with his children A.A. and L.A. (the Children).2 The trial court found that the Department of Family and Protective Services had proved three conduct-based grounds for termination and that termination was in the Children’s best interest. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), (O), (2). The trial court awarded permanent managing conservatorship of the Children to the Department. Father timely appealed.

II. BACKGROUND Father’s appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief asserting that “Father’s 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, order) (holding that Anders procedures apply in parental-rights termination cases), disp. on merits, No. 2-01-349-CV, 2003 WL 2006583, at *2–3 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth May 1, 2003, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op.). Counsel’s brief meets the Anders

See Tex. R. Jud. Admin. 6.2(a) (requiring appellate courts to dispose of appeal from a judgment terminating parental rights, so far as reasonably possible, within 180 days after notice of appeal is filed).

The Children’s parent–child relationship with their mother was also terminated, but no appeal was filed on the mother’s behalf.

requirements by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to advance on appeal.

We provided Father the opportunity to obtain a copy of the appellate record and to file a pro se response, but he did not do so. The Department has declined to file a responsive brief.

III. DISCUSSION 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 Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We also consider the Anders brief itself and, if filed, 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 Anders brief and the appellate record.

Having found 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 the parent–child relationship between Father and the Children.

Father’s 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 (Tex. 2016) (order); In re C.J., 501 S.W.3d 254, 255 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2016, pet. denied). Accordingly, Father’s counsel remains appointed through proceedings in the Texas Supreme Court unless otherwise relieved. See P.M., 520 S.W.3d at 27–28; see also Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 107.016(2)(C).

IV. CONCLUSION We agree with counsel that Father’s appeal is frivolous; thus, we affirm the trial court’s termination order.

/s/ Dana Womack Dana Womack Justice Delivered: June 13, 2024