Court of Appeals of Texas, Twelfth District, Tyler
FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2 ANGELINA COUNTY, TEXAS
consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.
appeals the termination of his parental rights. His counsel
filed a brief in compliance with Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493
(1967), and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d
137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). We affirm.
and B.E. are the parents of A.A. On April 12, 2017, the
Department of Family and Protective Services (the Department)
filed an original petition for protection of the child, for
conservatorship, and for termination of A.A.'s parental
rights. The Department was appointed temporary managing
conservator of the children, and the parents were allowed
supervised visitation with the child.
conclusion of the trial on the merits, the jury found, by
clear and convincing evidence, that A.J.A. had engaged in one
or more of the acts or omissions necessary to support
termination of his parental rights under subsections (D),
(E), (O), and (P) of Texas Family Code Section 161.001(b)(1).
The jury also found that termination of the parent-child
relationship between A.A. and A.J.A. was in the child's
best interest. Based on these findings, the trial court
ordered that the parent-child relationship between A.J.A. and
A.A. be terminated. This appeal followed.
Pursuant to Anders v. California
counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders,
stating that he has diligently reviewed the appellate record
and is of the opinion that the record reflects no reversible
error and that there is no error upon which an appeal can be
predicated. This Court has previously held that
Anders procedures apply in parental rights
termination cases when the Department has moved for
termination. See In re K.S.M., 61 S.W.3d 632, 634
(Tex. App.-Tyler 2001, no pet.). In compliance with
Anders, counsel's brief presents 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 Anders, 386
U.S. at 744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400; Mays v. State, 904
S.W.2d 920, 922- 23 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 1995, no pet.).
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) (en
banc); Mays, 904 S.W.2d at 923. We have carefully
reviewed the appellate record and counsel's brief. We
find nothing in the record that might arguably support the
appeal. See Taylor v. Tex. Dep't of
Protective & Regulatory Servs., 160 S.W.3d 641,
646-47 (Tex. App.-Austin 2005, pet. denied).
agree with A.J.A.'s counsel that the appeal is wholly
frivolous. Accordingly, we affirm the trial
court's judgment. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2.
CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and brief
filed herein, and the same being considered, it is the
opinion of this ...