Opinion
No. 07-15-00190-CV
08-28-2015
IN THE INTEREST OF K.E.M., A CHILD
On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2 Randall County, Texas
Trial Court No. 11103-L2, Honorable Jack M. Graham, Presiding
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.
E.G.M. Sr. appeals the order of the trial court terminating his parental rights to K.E.M. E.G.M. Sr.'s appointed counsel has filed a brief in conformity with Anders v. California rendering her professional opinion that any issue that could be raised on appeal is frivolous and without legal merit. See 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967). E.G.M. Sr.'s counsel avers that she has zealously reviewed the record in this matter and can find no arguable points of appeal. Counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and provided E.G.M. Sr. with a copy of the brief. Further, counsel has advised E.G.M. Sr. that he has the right to file a pro se response to the Anders brief. The Court has likewise advised E.G.M. Sr. of this right. Additionally, E.G.M. Sr.'s counsel has certified that she has provided appellant with a copy of the record to use in preparation of a pro se response. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 321-22 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). E.G.M. Sr. has not favored the Court with a response.
This Court has long held that an appointed attorney in a termination case might discharge her professional duty to her client by filing a brief in conformity with the Anders process. See In re A.W.T., 61 S.W.3d 87, 88-89 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2001, no pet.). Likewise, other intermediate appellate courts have so held. See Sanchez v. Tex. Dep't of Family and Protective Servs., No. 03-10-00249-CV, 2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 2162, at *1 (Tex. App.—Austin Mar. 24, 2011, no pet.) (mem. op.); In re L.K.H, No. 11-10-00080-CV, 2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 1706, at *2-4 (Tex. App—Eastland Mar. 10, 2011, no pet.) (mem. op.); In re D.D., 279 S.W.3d 849, 849-50 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2009, pet. denied); In re D.E.S., 135 S.W.3d 326, 326-27 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, no pet.).
We have conducted our own review of the record in this matter and have come to the conclusion that there are no arguable points of appeal. See In re A.W.T., 61 S.W.3d at 89. We, therefore, grant counsel's motion to withdraw. We remind counsel that E.G.M. Sr. has the right to file a pro se petition for review with the Texas Supreme Court. Finally, having found no arguable points of appeal requiring reversal, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Mackey K. Hancock
Justice