From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

L. M. v. Tex. Dep't of Family & Protective Servs.

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
Dec 17, 2014
NO. 03-14-00624-CV (Tex. App. Dec. 17, 2014)

Opinion

NO. 03-14-00624-CV

12-17-2014

L. M., Appellant v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee


FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 98TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. D-1-FM-13-006568, HONORABLE AMY CLARK MEACHUM, JUDGE PRESIDING

MEMORANDUM OPINION

L.M. appeals from the trial court's order terminating her parental rights to her minor child, L.L. See Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001. In support of its petition to terminate L.M.'s parental rights, the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (the Department) alleged that L.M. failed to comply with the terms of a court order that established the specific actions L.M. had to take to achieve reunification with her daughter after her removal from L.M. for abuse or neglect. See id. § 161.001(1)(O). The Department also alleged that termination of L.M.'s parental rights was in L.L.'s best interest. See id. § 161.001(2). Following a termination hearing, the trial court found by clear and convincing evidence that a statutory ground for terminating L.M.'s parental rights existed and that termination was in L.L.'s best interest.

The trial court also terminated the parental rights of P.L., L.L.'s father. P.L. has not appealed the trial court's judgment.

On appeal, L.M.'s court-appointed attorney has filed an Anders brief informing this Court that she has made a diligent review of the appellate record and can find no arguable grounds to be advanced on appeal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). The brief meets the requirements of Anders by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See Taylor v. Texas Dep't of Protective & Regulatory Servs., 160 S.W.3d 641, 646-47 (Tex. App.—Austin 2005, pet. denied) (applying Anders procedure in appeal from termination of parental rights). Counsel has provided L.M. with a copy of the Anders brief along with a notice advising L.M. of her right to examine the appellate record and to file a pro se brief. No pro se brief has been filed.

Upon receiving an Anders brief, we must conduct a full examination of all of the proceedings to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988). We have reviewed the entire record, including the Anders brief submitted on L.M.'s behalf, and we have found nothing that would arguably support an appeal. We agree that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's order terminating L.M.'s parental rights and grant counsel's motion to withdraw as attorney of record.

/s/_________

Scott K. Field, Justice
Before Justices Puryear, Pemberton, and Field Affirmed Filed: December 17, 2014


Summaries of

L. M. v. Tex. Dep't of Family & Protective Servs.

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
Dec 17, 2014
NO. 03-14-00624-CV (Tex. App. Dec. 17, 2014)
Case details for

L. M. v. Tex. Dep't of Family & Protective Servs.

Case Details

Full title:L. M., Appellant v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services…

Court:TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

Date published: Dec 17, 2014

Citations

NO. 03-14-00624-CV (Tex. App. Dec. 17, 2014)