In the Interest of J.K., A.R., and A.R., Children v. the State of Texas

In the
Court of Appeals
Second Appellate District of Texas
at Fort Worth
___________________________
No. 02-25-00412-CV
___________________________

IN THE INTEREST OF J.K., A.R., AND A.R., CHILDREN

On Appeal from the 360th District Court
Tarrant County, Texas
Trial Court No. 360-621473-17

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

I. Introduction

This is an ultra-accelerated appeal1 in which Appellant A.K. (Mother) appeals

the termination of her parental rights to J.K. (Jack),2 A.R. (Angela), and A.R. (Allison)

and in which Appellant T.R. (Father) appeals the termination of his parental rights to

Angela and Allison following a two-day bench trial. The trial court terminated

Mother’s parental rights based on clear and convincing evidence of three predicate

grounds—endangering environment, endangering conduct, and prior parental-rights

termination on endangerment grounds 3—and the best-interest ground. See Tex. Fam.

Code Ann. § 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), (M), (b)(2). The trial court terminated Father’s

parental rights based on clear and convincing evidence of three predicate grounds—

endangering environment, endangering conduct, and constructive abandonment—and

the best-interest ground. See id. § 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), (N), (b)(2).

1
See Tex. R. Jud. Admin. 6.2(a) (requiring appellate court to dispose of appeal
from a judgment terminating parental rights, so far as reasonably possible, within 180
days after notice of appeal is filed).

See Tex. R. App. P. 9.8(b)(2) (requiring court to use aliases to refer to minors in
2

an appeal from a judgment terminating parental rights). We use aliases to refer to all
children who are mentioned in this opinion.

The record includes an October 9, 2024 termination order showing that
3

Mother’s parental rights to A.E. (Ada) were terminated based on endangering
environment, endangering conduct, and failure to complete court-ordered services.
Mother appealed, and we affirmed the termination order. See In re A.E., No. 02-24-
00473-CV, 2025 WL 1062088, at *1–2 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Apr. 8, 2025, no pet.)
(mem. op.).

2
Both Mother’s and Father’s court-appointed counsel have filed Anders4 briefs,

stating that they could find no errors warranting reversal that could be legitimately

supported by the record and concluding that each appeal is frivolous and without

merit. Because our independent review of the record compels us to agree with each

parent’s counsel, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

II. Mother’s Appeal

Mother’s appointed appellate counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders,

averring that after diligently reviewing the record, he believes that the appeal is

frivolous. See 386 U.S. at 744–45, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; see also In re K.M., 98 S.W.3d 774,

776–77 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2003, order) (reasoning that Anders procedures apply

in noncriminal appeals when appointment of counsel is mandated by statute).

Counsel’s brief presents a professional evaluation of the record, an analysis of

potential appellate issues, and a demonstration of why there are no meritorious

grounds for reversal.

Counsel served the brief on Mother and informed her of her rights to request

the record and to file a pro se response to the Anders brief.5 See Anders, 386 U.S. at

4
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744–45, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967).
5
Counsel also provided Mother with “the necessary paperwork and
instructions,” including a pro se motion for access to the appellate record, for Mother
to file her own brief and informed her that he is not permitted to withdraw and that
he “will be obliged to file a Petition for Discretionary Review (PDR) with the
Supreme Court of Texas” before requesting to withdraw. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d
313, 319–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Counsel is correct that he remains appointed

3
744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; In re G.C., No. 02-20-00368-CV, 2021 WL 1823341, at *1 (Tex.

App.—Fort Worth May 7, 2021, pet. denied) (mem. op.). We similarly informed

Mother of her rights. Mother has not requested access to the appellate record and did

not file a response. The Department has declined to file a responsive brief.

Nonetheless, we must independently examine the appellate record to determine

if any arguable grounds for appeal exist. In re K.W., No. 02-23-00082-CV, 2023 WL

4289613, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth June 30, 2023, no pet.) (mem. op.); see In re

K.A., No. 02-23-00014-CV, 2023 WL 3251013, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth May 4,

2023, pet. ref’d) (mem. op.). Having done so, we conclude that Mother’s appeal is

frivolous. See K.W., 2023 WL 4289613, at *1 (conducting Anders analysis and reaching

same conclusion); K.A., 2023 WL 3251013, at *2 (same).

III. Father’s Appeal

Father’s appointed appellate counsel filed a motion to withdraw in addition to

the Anders brief. Father’s counsel’s brief presents a professional evaluation of the

record, an analysis of potential appellate issues, and a demonstration of why there are

no meritorious grounds for reversal.

through proceedings in the Texas Supreme Court unless he is relieved of his duties
for good cause. In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27–28 (Tex. 2016) (order).

4
Counsel served the brief on Father and informed him of his rights to request

the record and to file a pro se response to the Anders brief.6 See Anders, 386 U.S. at

744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; G.C., 2021 WL 1823341, at *1. We similarly informed Father

of his rights. Father has not sought to access the appellate record and did not file a

response. The Department has declined to file a responsive brief.

Having independently examined the appellate record to determine if any

arguable grounds for appeal exist, we conclude that Father’s appeal is also frivolous.

K.W., 2023 WL 4289613, at *1; see K.A., 2023 WL 3251013, at *2.

IV. Conclusion

We agree with counsel that Father’s and Mother’s appeals are frivolous; thus,

we affirm the trial court’s termination order. We deny Father’s counsel’s motion to

withdraw; each counsel remains appointed in this case through any proceedings in the

Texas Supreme Court unless otherwise relieved of those duties. See P.M., 520 S.W.3d

at 27–28; In re J.W., No. 02-22-00161-CV, 2022 WL 15076379, at *1 (Tex. App.—

Fort Worth Oct. 27, 2022, pet. denied) (mem. op. on reh’g).

/s/ Dabney Bassel

Dabney Bassel
Justice

Delivered: December 4, 2025

6
Counsel also provided Father with a motion for pro se access to the appellate
record and notified him of his right to seek review before the Supreme Court of
Texas should the court declare his appeal frivolous. See Kelly, 436 S.W.3d at 319–20.

5