In the Interest of E.N., a Child Appeal from 367th District Court of Denton County (memorandum opinion per curiam)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth ___________________________ No. 02-20-00164-CV ___________________________ IN THE INTEREST OF E.N., A CHILD On Appeal from the 367th District Court Denton County, Texas Trial Court No. 19-5791-367 Before Kerr, Bassel, and Womack, JJ. Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion MEMORANDUM OPINION S.N. (Father) appeals from the trial court’s order terminating his parental rights to his daughter E.N. (Ella) 1 and awarding permanent managing conservatorship of her to the Department of Family and Protective Services.2 See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), (O), (K), (b)(2). We affirm. 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, no pet.) (holding that Anders procedures apply in parental-rights-termination cases). The brief meets Anders’s requirements by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced on appeal. Although provided with the opportunity to obtain a copy of the appellate record and to file a pro se response, Father has not done so. The Department of Family and Protective Services has declined to file a response. In assessing the correctness of a compliant Anders brief’s conclusion that an appeal from a judgment terminating parental rights is frivolous, we must independently examine the appellate record to determine if any arguable grounds for We use aliases to identify the parties. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 109.002(d); Tex. R. App. P. 9.8(b)(2). 1 The trial court also terminated Ella’s mother’s parental rights, but Ella’s mother has not appealed. 2 2 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 also 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.). We also consider the Anders brief itself and 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 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 D.D., 279 S.W.3d 849, 850 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2009, pet. denied). We thus affirm the trial court’s order terminating Father’s parental rights to Ella. 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, 27–28 (Tex. 2016) (order); In re C.J., 501 S.W.3d 254, 255 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2016, pets. denied). Accordingly, counsel remains appointed in this appeal through proceedings in the supreme court unless otherwise relieved from her duties for good cause in accordance with Family Code Section 107.016(3)(C). See P.M., 520 S.W.3d at 27–28; see also Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 107.016(3)(C). 3 Per Curiam Delivered: November 19, 2020 4

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.