### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-12-00701- CV NO. 03-12-00765- CV
R. I., Appellan t
v. Texas Depart m ent of Fam ily and P rote ctive Service s, Appellee

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F TO M GREEN CO UNTY, 340 TH JUDICI AL DISTRICT NOS . C-1 1-0 016- CP S & C-1 1-0 016- CP S-1 HO NORAB LE JAY K . WEATH ERB Y , JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
T h ese are appea ls pursuant to Anders v. Calif ornia , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). I n trial court cause number C-11-0016-CPS, the Texas Depa rtment of Family and Protective Service s (the Depa rtment) soug ht to terminate the pa renta l rig hts of appellant R.I . to her minor child, M.O. I n tr ial court cause number C-11-0016-CPS-1, the Depa rtment simil arly soug ht to terminate the pare ntal rig hts of R. I
. t o h er other minor children, R.A.M.M. and J .S.M. The cause s wer e consolidated for trial. Howeve r, prior to the final hear ing, the parties enter ed into a n ag ree ment in which the De p artment abandone d its g rounds for termination, and all other issues wer e resolved, except for the amount of child support that R.I
. was ob l i gat ed to pay and the details reg arding R.I .’s visitation rig hts to R.A.M.M. and J .S.M. The district court held a hear ing to deter mine those
rema ining issues.

At the hearing , the district court he ard e vidence tending to show that R.I
. car ed for and loved her children but had a history of err atic behavior and rela tionsh i p s with abusive men,includi n g one rela tionship with a man who had an extensive criminal history , was a member of

the Ary an Brother

hood, and had his own pare ntal rig hts terminated. Althoug h R.I . claimed in her t es timony that she and this man wer e only “fr iends,” the evidenc e tended to show that she had
rec ently bonded him out of jail and that he had listed her residenc e as h i s m ail ing addre ss. Additionally , sever al witnesses and people involved in the case testified that R.I
. had been “stalking ” them and that they had felt threa tened by R.I .’s behavior
. R.I
. denied that she had “stalked” any one.

The district cour t al s o hear d evidenc e conce rning R.I .’s income and financ ial
resour ces. R.I . testified that she wa s curr ently unemploy ed but ha d worke d as a Cer tified Nursing As sistant for approximately fiftee n y ear s, from 1997 throug h 2012. I n 2011 and 2 0 1 2 , R
. I
. h ad worke d at variou s j o bs that had paid her approximately $11.00 per hour, $1,881.00 per month, $700.00 ever

y two wee ks, and $950.00 eve ry two wee ks. Howeve r, none of these jobs ha d lasted for more than a few months. R
. I
. t es t i fi ed that she was looking for work but that her eff orts thus far had been unsucce ssful. Robert W al k er, a case worke r for the Depa rtment who had worke d extensively

with R.I ., testified that in his opinion, t here was no reason why R.I
. would not be able to obtain a full-time job making minimum wag e.

At the conclusion of t he hea ring , the district court a

pproved the parties’ ag ree ment and order ed that R.I
. have supervised visitation with R.A.M.M. and J .S.M. on the second and fourth Saturday of eac h month, at a supervised visitation cente r in Midland, Texas, and telephone visitation with the children on Wednesday of eac h wee k beg inning a t 7:00 p.m., with t he ca lls not t o exceed thirty minutes in duration. Reg arding child support, the district court order ed that R.I
. pay child support for M.O. in the amount of $125.00 for the month of November 2012, $150.00 for the month of Dec ember 2012, and $188.00 p er month beg inning in J anuar y 2013. The district court further 2order ed t h at R
. I
. p ay child support for R.A.M.M. and J .S.M. in the amount of $125.00 for the

month of November 2012, $150.00 for t h e m o n t h of Dec ember 2012, $200.00 for the month of J anuar y 2013, and $265.00 per

month beg inning in F ebrua ry 2013. I n eac h of these appea ls, R. I
. ’s co u rt -appointed attorney has filed a motion to withdraw supported by a brief concluding that the appea l is frivolous and without merit. The briefs meet the require ments of Anders v. Calif ornia by prese nting a profe ssional evalua tion of the rec ord demonstrating why there are no arg uable g rounds to be advanc ed. See 386 U.S. a t 744- 45; Taylor

v. Texas Dep’ t of Protective & Regulatory Servs. , 160 S.W .3d 641, 6 4 6 -4 7 (T ex. App.—Austin 2005, pet. denied) ; see also In re A.W .T. , 61 S.W .3d 87, 88 (Tex. App.—Amar illo 2 0 0 1 , n o pet.) (“The rationale underly ing Anders is no less applicable to a civil matter in which counsel has been appointed to repr esent the appellant.” ). R.I
. was mailed a copy of counsel’s briefs and was advised of her rig ht to examine the appellate rec ords and to file a pro se brief. No pro se brief has been filed.

I n eac h cause , we have revie wed the rec ord and co u n s el ’s brief and ag ree that the appea l is frivolous and without merit
. We find nothing in the rec ord of either cause that might arg uably support the appea l. See Anders , 386 U.S. at 741-44; Taylor , 160 S.W .3d at 646-47. Acc ording ly , in eac h cause , counsel’s motion to withdraw is g rante d, and the order of the district court is aff

irmed.

__________________________________________ Bob Pembe rton, J ustice Be fore J ustices Pury ear , Pemberton and Rose Affir med Filed: Apr il 12, 2013 3