In the Interest of K.W., a Child Appeal from 323rd District Court of Tarrant County (opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02-17-00077-CV IN THE INTEREST OF K.W., A CHILD ---------FROM THE 323RD DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY TRIAL COURT NO. 323-102537-15 ---------- MEMORANDUM OPINION1 ---------K.W.’s Father appeals from the trial court’s judgment terminating his parental rights to K.W. on constructive abandonment grounds. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(b)(1)(N), (b)(2) (West Supp. 2016). We affirm. Father’s appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and a brief in support of that motion in which he asserts 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 1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4. 2003, no pet.) (holding that Anders procedures apply in termination of parental rights cases). The brief meets the requirements of Anders by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced on appeal. Counsel and this court also sent Father letters informing him of his right to file a response to the Anders brief. Out of an abundance of caution, this court forwarded a copy of its letter to another address associated with Father, but that correspondence was returned “unclaimed.” Father has not indicated an intention to file a response to counsel’s Anders brief. The State has declined to file a brief. Once an appellant’s court-appointed attorney files a motion to withdraw on the ground that the appeal is frivolous and fulfills the requirements of Anders, this court is obligated to undertake an independent examination of the record to determine if any arguable grounds for appeal exist. See 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.). When analyzing whether any grounds for appeal exist, we consider the record, the Anders brief, and any pro se response. 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 2 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 K.W. Because counsel’s motion to withdraw does not show good cause for the withdrawal independent from counsel’s conclusion that the appeal is frivolous, we deny the motion. See In re P.M., No. 15-0171, 2016 WL 1274748, at *3 (Tex. Apr. 1, 2016) (order); In re C.J., 501 S.W.3d 254, 255 (Tex. App.––Fort Worth 2016, pets. denied).2 /s/ Terrie Livingston TERRIE LIVINGSTON CHIEF JUSTICE PANEL: LIVINGSTON, C.J.; MEIER and GABRIEL, JJ. DELIVERED: July 6, 2017 2 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. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
