Opinion
04-23-01035-CV
05-15-2024
IN THE INTEREST OF S.A.R.P. and J.M.R.P., Children
From the 166th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2022-PA-02000 Honorable Raul Perales, Judge Presiding
Sitting: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice, Beth Watkins, Justice, Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PATRICIA O. ALVAREZ, JUSTICE.
AFFIRMED; MOTION TO WITHDRAW DENIED
Appellant Dad appeals the trial court's order terminating his parental rights to his children S.A.R.P. and J.M.R.P. The case began when the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services received a referral for negligent supervision of the children, and it sued to terminate the parents' rights. After a bench trial, the court found that Dad's conduct met the statutory grounds in section 161.001(b)(1)(E), (N), and (O), and that terminating Dad's parental rights was in the children's best interests. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(b)(1), (2). Dad timely appealed, and his court-appointed counsel filed an Anders brief.
We use aliases to protect the children's identities. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 109.002(d); Tex.R.App.P. 9.8.
Because Dad is the only appellant, we limit our recitation of the facts to those relevant to Dad and the children.
Anders Brief
Dad's court-appointed counsel filed a brief containing a professional evaluation of the record. Counsel concluded there was insufficient evidence to support the trial court's finding on ground (N), but because a single statutory ground-coupled with a best interest of the child finding-will support terminating a parent's rights, In re A.V., 113 S.W.3d 355, 362 (Tex. 2003), there are no arguable grounds to reverse the termination order. 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) (applying Anders procedures to parental rights termination cases).
Counsel also provided Dad with a copy of the Anders brief, her motion to withdraw, and a form to request a free copy of the appellate record. Counsel advised Dad of his right to review the record and file his own brief. As he requested, we sent Dad a paper copy of the appellate record. We also granted his request for more time to file his brief; we ordered him to file it no later than April 5, 2024. To date, Dad has not filed a pro se brief.
Having carefully reviewed the entire record and counsel's brief, we conclude (1) the evidence was legally and factually sufficient under a clear and convincing standard to support the trial court's findings on ground (E) and the best interests of the children, see Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; In re J.S.G., 613 S.W.3d 560, 560 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 2020, no pet.), and (2) there are no other plausible grounds to reverse the termination order. See In re J.S.G., 613 S.W.3d at 560.
We affirm the trial court's order.
Motion to Withdraw Denied
In her motion to withdraw, court-appointed appellate counsel does not assert any ground for withdrawal other than her conclusion that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. Counsel's duty to Dad extends through the exhaustion or waiver of all appeals, including the filing of a petition for review in the Texas Supreme Court. See In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d at 27, n.11; see also Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 107.016(2)(B); In re A.M., 495 S.W.3d 573, 583 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2016, pet. denied). Counsel's motion to withdraw is denied.