From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re A.R.

Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourth District, San Antonio
Aug 4, 2021
No. 04-20-00340-CV (Tex. App. Aug. 4, 2021)

Opinion

04-20-00340-CV

08-04-2021

IN THE INTEREST OF A.R. Jr., a Child


From the 293rd Judicial District Court, Zavala County, Texas Trial Court No. 18-03-14124-ZCV Honorable Maribel Flores, Judge Presiding

Sitting: Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Irene Rios, Justice Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

A.R. appeals the trial court's Order of Termination, which terminated his parent-child relationship with A.R. Jr. and designated the Department of Family and Protective Services as the child's permanent managing conservator. The case was tried to the bench, and the trial court found four independent grounds to terminate A.R.'s rights and found that termination is in A.R. Jr.'s best interest.

To protect the identity of the minor child, we refer to the parties by their initials. See TEX. FAM. CODE § 109.002(d); TEX. R. APP. P. 9.8.

TEX. FAM. CODE § 161.001(b)(1)(D) (knowingly placed or allowed child to remain in conditions or surroundings that endangered child); (E) (engaged in conduct or knowingly placed child with person who engaged in conduct that endangered child); (N) (constructively abandoned child); and (O) (failed to comply with court ordered services).

Appellant's court-appointed appellate attorney filed a brief in which he concluded there are no non-frivolous issues to be raised on appeal and a motion to withdraw. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 n.10 (Tex. 2016) (per curiam) (stating that Anders procedures protect indigent parents' statutory right to counsel on appeal in parental rights termination cases and apply in those cases). Counsel certified that he sent A.R. copies of the brief and of counsel's motion to withdraw, and sent a letter advising A.R. of his rights to review the record and to file a pro se brief. Counsel also provided A.R. a form to use to request access to the record.

This court notified A.R. of the deadlines to request access to the record and to file a pro se brief. A.R. did not request access to the record and has not filed a pro se brief.

We have thoroughly reviewed the record and the attorney's Anders brief. We conclude clear and convincing evidence supports the trial court's findings and there are no nonfrivolous grounds for appeal. We therefore affirm the trial court's termination order.

Counsel filed a motion to withdraw in conjunction with his Anders brief. We deny counsel's motion to withdraw because it does not assert any ground for withdrawal apart from counsel's conclusion that the appeal is frivolous. See In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d at 27; In re A.M., 495 S.W.3d 573, 583 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2016, pet. denied).

MOTION TO WITHDRAW DENIED; AFFIRMED


Summaries of

In re A.R.

Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourth District, San Antonio
Aug 4, 2021
No. 04-20-00340-CV (Tex. App. Aug. 4, 2021)
Case details for

In re A.R.

Case Details

Full title:IN THE INTEREST OF A.R. Jr., a Child

Court:Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourth District, San Antonio

Date published: Aug 4, 2021

Citations

No. 04-20-00340-CV (Tex. App. Aug. 4, 2021)