In the Interest of P.G., a Child Appeal from 231st District Court of Tarrant County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth ___________________________ No. 02-22-00079-CV ___________________________ IN THE INTEREST OF P.G., A CHILD On Appeal from the 231st District Court Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 231-697136-21 Before Justice Wallach, Bassel, and Womack, JJ. Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion MEMORANDUM OPINION Mother appeals the trial court’s judgment terminating her parental rights to her child after the trial court found that Mother had endangered the child, that Mother had failed to comply with her court-ordered service plan, and that termination was in the child’s best interest. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), (O), (b)(2). We affirm. Mother’s appointed appellate counsel filed an Anders brief stating that the appeal is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 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 cases terminating parental rights). The brief meets the Anders requirements by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating why the appeal is wholly without merit. See In re D.A.S., 973 S.W.2d 296, 297 (Tex. 1998) (orig. proceeding). Further, Mother’s counsel (1) provided Mother with a copy of the Anders brief, (2) informed Mother of her right to file a pro se response, and (3) advised Mother of her right to access the appellate record and provided her with a form motion to effectuate that purpose. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Mother did not file a response, and the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services declined to file a brief. When an Anders brief is filed, we must independently examine the record to determine if any arguable grounds for appeal exist. In re C.J., 501 S.W.3d 254, 255 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2016, pets. denied). Our examination should consider the 2 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.). After careful review, we agree with Mother’s counsel that the appeal is wholly without merit. Counsel remains Mother’s appointed attorney through proceedings in the supreme court unless one of the conditions of Texas Family Code Section 107.016(2) is met. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 107.016(2)(A)–(C); In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 (Tex. 2016) (order); In re W.J., No. 02-20-00275-CV, 2021 WL 62132, at *2 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Jan. 7, 2021, no pet.) (mem. op.). We affirm the trial court’s judgment terminating Mother’s parental rights. Per Curiam Delivered: June 9, 2022 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.
