In The 

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07-18-00142-CV 

IN THE INTEREST OF J.L.R., A CHILD 

 

 

On Appeal from the 222nd District Court 

Deaf Smith County, Texas 

Trial Court No. DR-16L-180, Honorable Roland D. Saul, Presiding 

 

July 12, 2018 

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

 

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PARKER, JJ. 

Appellant D.L., the mother, appeals the termination of her parental rights to her 

daughter, J.L.R.1 See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 161.001 (West Supp. 2017). The mother’s 

court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw supported by an Anders 

brief. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967); In re 

P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 (Tex. 2016) (per curiam). We will affirm the final order of the 

trial court and take no action on counsel’s motion to withdraw.

 

1 To protect the child’s privacy, we will refer to the child’s mother as D.L. and “the 

mother” and to the child as J.L.R. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 109.002(d) (West Supp. 

2017); TEX. R. APP. P. 9.8(b).
2

J.L.R. was born November 18, 2016. Final hearing testimony and documentary 

evidence showed that during her pregnancy with J.L.R. the mother used 

methamphetamine “at least every other day,” consumed a significant amount of liquor 

nightly, and smoked tobacco. She admitted using methamphetamine on the day of 

J.L.R.’s birth. J.L.R. tested positive at birth for amphetamines, methamphetamines and 

TCH, and experienced “some withdrawal issues.”

J.L.R. was removed from the mother in December 2016 and appellee, the Texas 

Department of Family and Protective Services, was appointed temporary managing 

conservator. Placement was with fictive kin. Under the Department’s family plan of 

service, the mother was required to perform various services to obtain the return of J.L.R. 

Although the service plan was made a court order, the mother did not perform the required 

services.

Evidence showed the mother was nineteen when J.L.R. was born, and reported 

she first used methamphetamine at age eleven. There was evidence she used 

methamphetamine daily at times. There also was evidence of her convictions for 

possession of controlled substances in March 2016 and September 2017. The 

September 2017 conviction resulted from the revocation of her deferred adjudication 

community supervision imposed in July 2015. Documents from criminal proceedings 

stated she also had admitted the use of methamphetamine in September 2015, February 

2016, and November 2016.

Final hearing in the matter of J.L.R. was to the bench in April 2018. The 

Department requested termination of the mother’s parental rights, leading to adoption of 
3

the child by the fictive kin placement.2 J.L.R.’s attorney ad litem supported the 

Department’s position on termination and the prospective adoption. The court found 

termination of the mother’s parental rights was in the best interest of J.L.R. and the mother 

had violated the predicate grounds of Family Code subsections 

161.001(b)(1)(D),(E),(N),(O),(P)&(R). TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 161.001(b)(1)(D),(E),(N), 

(O),(P) & (R) (West Supp. 2017).

Counsel’s Anders brief presents a professional evaluation of the record 

demonstrating there are no arguable grounds for appeal. Anders, 386 U.S. at 744-45. 

We find counsel’s motion to withdraw and brief meet the requirements of Anders. Counsel 

also has demonstrated she provided a copy of her brief and the record to the mother and 

notified her of her right to file a pro se response if she desired. Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 

313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). By letter from the clerk, we also notified the mother of 

her opportunity to respond to counsel’s brief. She did not respond.

When presented with a motion to withdraw supported by an Anders brief we are 

required to independently examine the entire record and decide whether counsel has 

correctly determined the record does not present an arguable ground for appeal. Stafford 

v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); In re A.W.T., 61 S.W.3d 87, 89

(Tex. App.—Amarillo 2001, no pet.). We have carefully reviewed the record and 

counsel’s Anders brief and agree with counsel that the record presents no arguable 

 

2 J.L.R.’s father’s parental rights were terminated in the same proceeding; he has 

not appealed.
4

grounds for appeal. In re K.R.C., 346 S.W.3d 618, 619 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2009, no 

pet.).

The trial court’s order terminating the mother’s parental rights to J.L.R. is affirmed. 

We take no action on counsel’s motion to withdraw but call counsel’s attention to the 

continuing duty of representation through the exhaustion of proceedings, which may 

include the filing of a petition for review. In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d at 27.

James T. Campbell

 Justice