From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re L.M.H.

Court of Appeals Fourth Court of Appeals District of Texas San Antonio
Oct 3, 2012
No. 04-12-00369-CV (Tex. App. Oct. 3, 2012)

Opinion

No. 04-12-00369-CV

10-03-2012

IN THE INTEREST OF L.M.H., a Child


MEMORANDUM OPINION


From the 45th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2010-PA-02099

Honorable Charles E. Montemayor, Judge Presiding

The Honorable Barbara Nellermoe is the presiding judge of the 45th Judicial District Court of Bexar County, Texas. The order of termination was signed by Associate Judge Charles E. Montemayor.

Opinion by: Marialyn Barnard, Justice Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice
MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED; AFFIRMED

Appellant father, J.P., appeals the trial court's judgment terminating his parental rights to L.M.H. The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services ("the Department") moved to have appellant's parental rights terminated on a variety of grounds. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. §§ 161.001(1)(A)-(F), (H), (M)-(Q) (West Supp. 2012). After a bench trial, the trial court found appellant's parental rights should be terminated because he: (1) constructively abandoned L.M.H., and (2) failed to comply with the provision of a court order that established the actions necessary for him to obtain the return of L.M.H. See id. §§ 161.001(1)(N), (O). The trial court also determined termination would be in the best interest of the child. See id. § 161.001(2).

Appellant's court-appointed appellate attorney has filed a motion to withdraw and a brief containing a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating there are no arguable grounds to be advanced and concluding the appeal is frivolous. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). See In re R.R., No. 04-03-00096-CV, 2003 WL 21157944, *4 (Tex. App.—San Antonio May 21, 2003, order) (applying Anders procedure to appeals from orders terminating parental rights), disp. on merits, 2003 WL 22080522 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Sept. 10, 2003, no pet.) (mem. op.). Appellant was provided a copy of the brief and informed of his right to file his own brief. See Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 85-86 (Tex. App.—San Antonio July 23, 1997, no pet.); In re R.R., 2003 WL 21157944, at *4. Appellant did not file a pro se brief.

We have reviewed the record and the attorney's brief and we agree with counsel that the appellate points do not present a substantial question for appellate review. Accordingly, we hold the trial court did not err in terminating appellant's parental rights. We grant the motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court's judgment.

Marialyn Barnard, Justice


Summaries of

In re L.M.H.

Court of Appeals Fourth Court of Appeals District of Texas San Antonio
Oct 3, 2012
No. 04-12-00369-CV (Tex. App. Oct. 3, 2012)
Case details for

In re L.M.H.

Case Details

Full title:IN THE INTEREST OF L.M.H., a Child

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

Date published: Oct 3, 2012

Citations

No. 04-12-00369-CV (Tex. App. Oct. 3, 2012)