From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re B.M.S.

Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourth District, San Antonio
Apr 13, 2022
No. 04-21-00265-CV (Tex. App. Apr. 13, 2022)

Opinion

04-21-00265-CV

04-13-2022

IN THE INTEREST OF B.M.S. and J.R.S., Children


From the 454th Judicial District Court, Medina County, Texas Trial Court No. 18-11-25367-CV Honorable Vivian Torres, Judge Presiding

Sitting: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice, Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice, Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

AFFIRMED; MOTION TO WITHDRAW DENIED

Mother N.S. appeals the trial court's order terminating her parental rights to her children B.M.S. and J.R.S. Mother's court-appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw and a brief representing that she conducted a professional evaluation of the record and determined there are no arguable grounds to be raised on appeal. The brief satisfies the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). See In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 n.10 (Tex. 2016) (per curiam) (recognizing Anders procedure applies in parental termination appeals). Counsel also certified that she sent a copy of the brief and the motion to withdraw to Mother, informed her of the right to review the record and file her own brief, and provided Mother with a form motion to request access to the record. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re A.L.H., No. 04-18-00153-CV, 2018 WL 3861695, at *2 (Tex. App.-San Antonio Aug. 15, 2018, no pet.). Mother requested the record and submitted a pro se brief.

To protect the identity of the minor children, we refer to the parties by fictitious names, initials, or aliases. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 109.002(d); Tex.R.App.P. 9.8(b)(2).

After reviewing the record, counsel's brief, and Mother's pro se brief, we agree that there are no meritorious issues to be raised and the appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's order. We deny counsel's motion to withdraw because she does not assert any ground for withdrawal other than her conclusion that the appeal is frivolous. In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d at 27-28 (holding counsel's obligations in parental termination cases extend through the exhaustion or waiver of all appeals, including the filing of a petition for review in the Texas Supreme Court).


Summaries of

In re B.M.S.

Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourth District, San Antonio
Apr 13, 2022
No. 04-21-00265-CV (Tex. App. Apr. 13, 2022)
Case details for

In re B.M.S.

Case Details

Full title:IN THE INTEREST OF B.M.S. and J.R.S., Children

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

Date published: Apr 13, 2022

Citations

No. 04-21-00265-CV (Tex. App. Apr. 13, 2022)