In the Interest of A.S., a Child Appeal from 231st District Court of Tarrant County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth ___________________________ No. 02-22-00083-CV ___________________________ IN THE INTEREST OF A.S., A CHILD On Appeal from the 231st District Court Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 231-699282-21 Before Womack, Wallach, and Walker, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Walker MEMORANDUM OPINION Father appeals from the trial court’s judgment terminating his parental rights to his child on the grounds that Father had endangered the child, had failed to comply with his court-ordered service plan, had failed to complete a court-ordered substanceabuse treatment program, and that termination was in the child’s best interest.1 See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), (O), (P), (b)(2). We affirm. Father’s appointed appellate counsel filed 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); 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 there are no arguable grounds to be advanced on appeal. Further, Father’s counsel (1) provided Father with a copy of the Anders brief, (2) informed Father of his rights to file a pro se response and to seek discretionary review from the supreme court, and (3) advised Father of his right to access the appellate record and provided to him a form motion for effectuating that purpose. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Father did not file a response, and the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services declined to file a brief. The child’s Mother also had her parental rights terminated but did not appeal the judgment. 1 2 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 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 Father’s counsel that there are no arguable grounds for appeal in this case. We affirm the trial court’s judgment terminating Father’s parental rights. Father’s counsel remains appointed in this case through any proceedings in the supreme court unless otherwise relieved of these duties. See In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 (Tex. 2016). /s/ Brian Walker Brian Walker Justice Delivered: August 4, 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.
