In the Interest of H.P. and H.H., Children Appeal from 415th District Court of Parker County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth ___________________________ No. 02-21-00268-CV ___________________________ IN THE INTEREST OF H.P. AND H.H., CHILDREN On Appeal from the 415th District Court Parker County, Texas Trial Court No. CV20-0936 Before Birdwell, Bassel, and Womack, JJ. Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion MEMORANDUM OPINION Mother appeals from the trial court’s judgment terminating her parental rights to her children. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), (O), (b)(2). We affirm. Mother’s appellate counsel filed a motion to withdraw and an Anders brief stating that there are no arguable grounds for appeal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967); In re K.M., 98 S.W.3d 774, 776–77 (Tex. App.— Fort Worth 2003, no pet.), disp. on merits, No. 2-01-349-CV, 2003 WL 2006583 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth May 1, 2003, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op.). Counsel’s brief presents the required professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for relief. Furthermore, in compliance with Kelly v. State, counsel provided Mother with copies of the Anders brief, the motion to withdraw, and the appellate record, and he informed Mother of her right to file a pro se response. 436 S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Mother did not file a response. The Department elected not to file a brief. In the Anders context, we must independently examine the record to determine if any arguable grounds for appeal exist. See In re C.J., 501 S.W.3d 254, 255 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2016, pets. denied). When performing this analysis, we consider the record, the briefs, and any pro se response. In re L.B., No. 02-19-00407-CV, 2020 WL 1809505, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Apr. 9, 2020, no pet.) (mem. op.). 2 After careful review, we agree with counsel that this appeal is without merit. We affirm the trial court’s judgment terminating Mother’s parental rights. We overrule the motion to withdraw; counsel remains appointed through proceedings in the supreme court unless otherwise relieved. See In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 (Tex. 2016). Per Curiam Delivered: December 16, 2021 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.
