In the Interest of A.A., a Child Appeal from 233rd District Court of Tarrant County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02-18-00092-CV IN THE INTEREST OF A.A., A CHILD ---------FROM THE 233RD DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY TRIAL COURT NO. 233-616179-17 ---------- MEMORANDUM OPINION1 ---------Appellant G.A. (Father) appeals the trial court’s order terminating his parental rights to his child A.A. The trial court found by clear and convincing evidence that termination was appropriate under subsections (L), (N), (O), and (Q) of family code section 161.001(b)(1) and under section 161.002(b) and that termination was in A.A.’s best interest. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. §§ 161.001(b)(1)(L), (N), (O), (Q), (2), 161.002(b) (West Supp. 2017). 1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4. Father’s court-appointed appellate attorney has filed a motion to withdraw as counsel and a brief in support of that motion, averring that after diligently reviewing the record, he believes that the 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, no pet.) (holding that Anders procedures apply in parental termination 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. We gave Father the opportunity to file a response, and he did so. As the reviewing appellate court, we must independently examine the record to decide whether an attorney is correct in determining that the appeal is frivolous. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); In re K.R.C., 346 S.W.3d 618, 619 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2009, no pet.). Having carefully reviewed the record, the Anders brief, and Father’s pro se response, we agree that the appeal is frivolous. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support Father’s appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Therefore, we affirm the trial court’s order terminating the parent-child relationship between Father and A.A. However, we deny the motion to withdraw because it does not show “good cause” separate and apart from its accurate determination that there are no arguable grounds for appeal. See In re P.M., 520 2 S.W.3d 24, 27 (Tex. 2016), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 1562 (2018); In re C.J., 501 S.W.3d 254, 255 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2016, pets. denied).2 /s/ Bill Meier BILL MEIER JUSTICE PANEL: MEIER, PITTMAN, and BIRDWELL, JJ. DELIVERED: July 12, 2018 “[A]ppointed counsel’s obligations can be satisfied by filing a petition for review that satisfies the standards for an Anders brief.” P.M., 520 S.W.3d at 27 28. 2 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.
