Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-19-00138-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF E.D.D., III, a Child

From the 408th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017PA02283

Honorable Martha Tanner, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Irene Rios, Justice

Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Irene Rios, Justice

Delivered and Filed: August 7, 2019

AFFIRMED; MOTION TO WITHDRAW DENIED

Appellant Mother appeals the trial court’s order terminating her parental rights to her child, 

Edward.1

 The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (“the Department”) filed this 

suit, seeking termination of the parent-child relationship between the child and Mother. After a 

bench trial, the court found one independent ground2 upon which to terminate Mother’s parental 

rights and found that termination was in Edward’s best interest. The trial court signed a 

termination order and designated Edward’s father as Sole Managing Conservator. Mother timely 

appealed the trial court’s order.

 1 To protect the identity of a minor child in an appeal from an order terminating parental rights, we refer to the mother 

as “Mother” and the child by alias. We refer to E.D.D., III as “Edward.” See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 109.002(d); 

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

2 Specifically, the trial court found evidence Mother “constructively abandoned the child ... .” See TEX. FAM. CODE 

ANN. § 161.001(b)(1)(N).
04-19-00138-CV

- 2 -

Appellant’s court-appointed appellate attorney filed a brief in which he concluded there 

are no non-frivolous issues to be raised on appeal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); 

In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 n.10 (Tex. 2016) (stating that Anders procedures protect indigent 

parents’ statutory right to counsel on appeal in parental rights termination cases and apply in those 

cases). Counsel certified that he sent Mother a copy of the brief and a letter advising her of her 

rights to review the record and to file a pro se brief. Counsel also provided Mother a form motion 

to use to request access to the record. In addition, counsel filed a motion to withdraw. This court 

issued an order which set deadlines for Mother to request access to the record and to file a pro se 

brief and abating counsel’s motion to withdraw. Mother did not request access to the appellate 

record or file a pro se brief.

We have thoroughly reviewed the record and counsel’s Anders brief. The record 

establishes by clear and convincing evidence the grounds for termination and that termination is 

in the child’s best interest. See TEX. FAM. CODE § 161.001; In re J.O.A., 283 S.W.3d 336, 344-45 

(Tex. 2009); In re A.V., 113 S.W.3d 355, 362 (Tex. 2003). Upon a thorough review of the record, 

we conclude the evidence is legally and factually sufficient to support the termination order and 

there are no other arguably meritorious grounds for appeal. Therefore, we affirm the trial court’s 

termination order.

Counsel filed a motion to withdraw in conjunction with his Anders brief. We deny 

counsel’s motion to withdraw because it does not assert any ground for withdrawal apart from 

counsel’s conclusion that the appeal is frivolous. See In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d at 27; In re A.M., 

495 S.W.3d 573, 583 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2016, pet. denied). Counsel’s duty to his 

client extends through the exhaustion or waiver of all appeals, including the filing of a petition for 

review in the Texas Supreme Court. See TEX. FAM. CODE § 107.016(3); In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 

at 27. After this court has rendered its decision, appointed counsel’s obligations to his client may 
04-19-00138-CV

- 3 -

be met by filing a petition for review that satisfies the standards for an Anders brief. In re P.M., 

520 S.W.3d at 27-28 & n.14.

Irene Rios, Justice