Full Opinion

In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth ___________________________ No. 02-26-00381-CV ___________________________ IN THE INTEREST OF J.J., A CHILD On Appeal from the 325th District Court Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 325-768391-25 Before Bassel, Womack, and Wallach, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Bassel MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant Mother appeals from the trial court’s judgment terminating her parent–child relationship with her minor child, J.J., and awarding permanent managing conservatorship of J.J. to the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services after J.J. was removed from Mother’s care and tested positive for amphetamine and methamphetamine. See Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), (N), (b)(2). We affirm. Mother’s appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and a brief stating that after thoroughly reviewing the appellate record, she “has been unable to identify any legally non-frivolous 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, order) (holding that Anders procedures apply in cases terminating parental rights), disp. on merits, No. 2-01-349-CV, 2003 WL 2006583, at *1–3 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth May 1, 2003, no pet.). 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, Mother’s counsel (1) provided Mother with copies of the motion to withdraw and Anders brief and a form pro se motion to access the appellate record with instructions on how to file it and (2) informed Mother of her right to file a pro se response and her right to file a pro se petition for review with the Texas Supreme Court if this court agrees that her appeal is frivolous. 2 Although given the opportunity to do so, neither Mother nor the Department of Family and Protective Services has filed a response. 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 if one is filed. In re L.B., No. 02-19-00407- CV, 2020 WL 1809505, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Apr. 9, 2020, no pet.). After careful review, we agree with Mother’s counsel that there are no arguable grounds for appeal in this case. We affirm the trial court’s judgment terminating the parent–child relationship between Mother and J.J. Mother’s counsel remains appointed in this case through any proceedings in the Supreme Court unless otherwise relieved of these duties. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 107.016; In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 (Tex. 2016) (order). /s/ Dabney Bassel Dabney Bassel Justice Delivered: August 31, 2026 3