In The 

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

________________________

No. 07-12-0486-CV 

________________________

In the Interest of N.F., D.F., J.F., and M.F., Children 

 

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2 

Lubbock County, Texas 

Trial Court No. 2003-522,865, Honorable Kevin Hart, Presiding 

 

May 7, 2013 

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

 

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

Appellant Donald Fierro had his parental rights to N.F., D.F., J.F. and M.F. 

terminated and has appealed from that order. Appellant’s appointed counsel has filed a 

motion to withdraw, together with an Anders brief wherein she certified that, after 

diligently searching the record, she has concluded that the appeal is without merit. 

Appellant filed a response to the Anders brief wherein he contended that 1) he was 

unable to access the record on the DVD mailed to him by his attorney, 2) trial counsel 

was ineffective and 3) the trial court erred in terminating his rights because the evidence 
2

was insufficient to support termination. We then directed appellant’s attorney to provide 

him with a paper record and extended his time to file a response to April 29, 2013. To 

date, no other response has been filed. Nor has appellant sought any additional time to 

respond.

In compliance with the principles enunciated in Anders, appellate counsel 

discussed one potential area for appeal which included the sufficiency of the evidence 

to support termination under the statutory ground (E) as alleged in the termination 

petition. However, counsel then proceeded to explain how the evidence was sufficient 

to support this ground and explained how only one sufficient ground supported 

termination. 

In addition, we conducted our own review of the record to assess the accuracy of 

appellate counsel’s conclusions and to uncover any arguable error pursuant to Stafford 

v. State, 813 S.W.2d 508 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Upon conducting that review, we 

determined that appellant 1) had notice of the grounds proffered for terminating his 

parental rights, 2) appeared at the hearing by teleconference, and 3) through counsel, 

had the opportunity to defend against the accusations, present evidence and crossexamine witnesses. Furthermore, the evidence presented at trial legally and factually 

supported at least one of the grounds for termination. See In re P.E.W., 105 S.W.3d 

771, 777 (Tex. App.–Amarillo 2003, no pet.) (holding that though the trial court found 

several statutory grounds warranting termination of the parent/child relationship, we 

need not determine whether each enjoys the requisite amount of evidentiary support. 

Instead, the decision may be affirmed if the evidence supports the existence of one 

ground and that termination is in the best interest of the child). The record also contains 
3

evidence upon which the trial court could clearly and convincingly find that termination 

of appellant’s parental rights was in the best interest of the child. 

Accordingly, having found no arguable merit to the appeal, we affirm the order for 

termination and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. 

 Brian Quinn

Chief Justice