Full Opinion

In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth ___________________________ No. 02-26-00363-CV ___________________________ IN THE INTEREST OF J.M. AND L.J., CHILDREN On Appeal from the 360th District Court Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 360-758854-24 Before Sudderth, C.J.; Kerr and Birdwell, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Sudderth MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant Y.M. (Mother) appeals the termination of her parental rights to two of her children—J.M. (Jake) and L.J. (Luke). See Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001(b). But Mother’s appointed appellate counsel (Counsel) has concluded that there are no meritorious grounds for reversal of the termination order, and after reviewing the record, we agree. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967); see also In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 & n.10 (Tex. 2016) (recognizing that Anders applies to termination cases). Therefore, we will affirm. I. Counsel’s Review of the Record Counsel has filed an Anders brief detailing her review of the record and explaining why, in her opinion, there are no meritorious grounds for Mother’s appeal. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400. Counsel has provided Mother with a copy of the Anders brief, has informed Mother of her rights to request the record and to file a pro se response, and has provided Mother with a motion to facilitate Mother’s accessing the record. See id.; In re E.L., No. 02-25-00165-CV, 2025 WL 2423335, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Aug. 21, 2025, pet. denied) (mem. op.). This court has similarly informed Mother of her rights. Yet, Mother has not sought to access the record, nor has she filed a response to Counsel’s Anders brief. II. This Court’s Review of the Record Nonetheless, to protect Mother’s rights, we “independently examine the appellate record to determine if any arguable grounds for appeal exist.” In re A.W., 2 No. 02-26-00223-CV, 2026 WL 2275222, at *2 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Aug. 6, 2026, no pet. h.) (mem. op.); E.L., 2025 WL 2423335, at *2. Our review confirms that no such grounds exist. The record reflects no jurisdictional flaws, see, e.g., Tex. Fam. Code §§ 152.201, 263.401; it shows no preserved, harmful evidentiary rulings; it demonstrates that Mother had adequate legal representation throughout the trial court proceedings; and it contains sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s findings that termination was in the children’s best interest and that Mother had violated at least one statutory predicate ground,1 see id. § 161.001(b). In other words, the record supports Counsel’s conclusion that Mother’s appeal is frivolous.2 See A.W., 2026 WL 2275222, at *2 (conducting brief Anders analysis and reaching similar conclusion). 1 The record shows that both children tested positive for methamphetamine at the time of their removal. And Mother had a pattern of abusing drugs—including while she was pregnant with Luke, while Jake and Luke were in her care, while she was pregnant with another child, and while the termination proceeding was pending. Mother also had a pattern of criminal conduct; she was convicted of two theft offenses that she committed while the termination case was pending, and her convictions reflected that she had committed prior theft offenses as well. By the final day of trial, Mother was incarcerated, and according to the witness testimony, Mother was facing charges for, among other things, “stealing from Walmart” and “a substance that she had on her.” See A.W., 2026 WL 2275222, at *1–2 & n.4 (holding appeal was frivolous and noting evidence “that Mother was a drug addict,” that she had used drugs while pregnant with the child, that she “had been twice incarcerated,” and that she had not complied with drug testing). Counsel remains appointed. See P.M., 520 S.W.3d at 27–28; E.L., 2025 WL 2 2423335, at *2. 3 III. Conclusion Because Mother’s appeal is frivolous, we affirm the trial court’s order of termination. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(a). /s/ Bonnie Sudderth Bonnie Sudderth Chief Justice Delivered: September 3, 2026 4