Court of Appeals of Texas, Second District, Fort Worth
IN THE INTEREST OF L.N. AND F.N., CHILDREN
COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2 OF PARKER COUNTY TRIAL COURT NO.
WALKER, GABRIEL, and SUDDERTH, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION 
Father appeals the trial court's order terminating his
parental rights to his daughter L.N. and his son F.N. After a
five-day jury trial, during which evidence was presented that
Father had used cocaine on two occasions after the children
were returned to him on a monitored return, the jury found by
clear and convincing evidence that Father's actions
satisfied the grounds listed in Texas Family Code section
161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), (O), and (P) as alleged in the
petition for termination and that termination of Father's
parental rights was in L.N.'s and F.N.'s best
interest, and the trial court incorporated the jury's
findings into its final order of termination. See
Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), (O), (P),
(2) (West Supp. 2016). See generally In re A.B., 437
S.W.3d 498, 503 (Tex. 2014) (recognizing appellate court need
not detail the evidence if affirming termination judgment).
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 he 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. Father
was given the opportunity to file a pro se response to the
Anders brief, and he did so. The Department of
Family and Protective Services did not file a response.
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. See 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
Anders procedures apply in parental-rights
termination cases), disp. on merits, No.
02-01-00349-CV, 2003 WL 2006583 (Tex. App.- Fort Worth May 1,
2003, no pet.) (mem. op.).
reviewing an Anders brief, this court is not
required to review the merits of each claim raised in the
brief or in a pro se response. Cf. Bledsoe v. State,
178 S.W.3d 824, 827 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Rather, this
court's duty is to determine whether there are any
arguable grounds for reversal and, if there are, to remand
the case to the trial court so that new counsel may be
appointed to brief the issues. Id. Thus, we conduct
an independent evaluation of the record to determine whether
counsel is correct in determining that the appeal is
frivolous. Cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503,
511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); see also K.M., 2003 WL
2006583, at *2.
carefully reviewed the appellate record, appellate
counsel's brief, and Father's pro se brief. We agree
with appellate counsel that the appeal is wholly frivolous
and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might
arguably support Father's appeal. Cf. Bledsoe,
178 S.W.3d at 827; see also In re D.D., 279 S.W.3d
849, 850 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2009, pet. denied). Therefore, we
affirm the trial court's judgment terminating
Father's parental rights to L.N. and F.N.
we deny the motion to withdraw filed by Father's counsel
in light of In re P.M. because it does not show
"good cause" other than counsel's determination
that an appeal would be frivolous. See No. 15-0171,
2016 WL 1274748, at *3-4 (Tex. Apr. 1, 2016) ("[A]n
Anders motion to withdraw brought in the court of
appeals, in the absence of additional grounds for withdrawal,
may be premature."); see also In re C.J., 501
S.W.3d 254, 255 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2016, pets. denied)
(denying a motion for withdrawal in light of P.M.
where it did not show "good cause" other than
counsels' determination that an appeal would be
frivolous); In re A.M., 495 S.W.3d 573, 582 &
n.2 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 2016, pets. denied)
(noting that since P.M. was handed down, "most
courts of appeals affirming parental termination orders after
receiving Anders briefs have denied the
attorney's motion to withdraw"). The supreme court
has held that in cases such as this, "appointed
counsel's obligations [in the supreme court] can be
satisfied by filing a petition for review that satisfies the
standards for an Anders brief." P.M.,
2016 WL 1274748, at *3. Accordingly, we deny the motion to
withdraw filed by Father's counsel in light of
P.M., 2016 WL 1274748, at *3-4.
See Tex. R. App. P.