In the Interest of L.L., a Child v. the State of Texas

In the
Court of Appeals
Second Appellate District of Texas
at Fort Worth
___________________________
No. 02-25-00546-CV
___________________________

IN THE INTEREST OF L.L., A CHILD

On Appeal from the 325th District Court
Tarrant County, Texas
Trial Court No. 325-761451-24

Before Birdwell, Womack, and Wallach, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Birdwell
MEMORANDUM OPINION

L.L.’s father1 appeals the trial court’s order terminating his parent–child

relationship with L.L. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(b)(1)(E), (b)(2).

Father’s appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief asserting 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, order) (holding

that Anders procedures apply in parental-rights termination cases). 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 attorney (1) provided Father with a copy of the Anders brief, (2) informed

Father of his right to file a pro se response, (3) advised Father of his right to access

the appellate record from our court and provided him with instructions and a draft

motion for obtaining the record, and (4) informed Father of the right to seek further

appellate review from the Texas Supreme Court should we decide that the appeal is

frivolous. See In E.L., No. 02-25-00165-CV, 2025 WL 2423335, at *1 (Tex. App.—

Fort Worth Aug. 21, 2025, pet. denied) (mem. op.).

Father was provided with the opportunity to obtain a copy of the appellate

record and to file a pro se response. He did not file a pro se response. The

In a termination-of-parental-rights appeal, we use aliases or initials for the
1

names of the children and their parents. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 109.002(d); Tex.
R. App. P. 9.8(b)(2).

2
Department of Family and Protective Services declined to file a brief but in a letter

sent to this court agreed that the appeal is frivolous.

When an Anders brief is filed, we must independently examine the appellate

record to determine if any arguable grounds for 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

arguable grounds for appeal, 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). Therefore, we affirm the trial court’s

judgment terminating Father’s parent–child relationship with L.L.2

/s/ Wade Birdwell

Wade Birdwell
Justice

Delivered: March 19, 2026

Counsel remains appointed in this appeal through proceedings in the supreme
2

court unless he is otherwise relieved of his duties for good cause in accordance with
Family Code Section 107.016. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 107.016; In re P.M., 520
S.W.3d 24, 27 (Tex. 2016) (order).

3