Court Opinion

ID: 9363646
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-17 14:08:49.192723+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:33.110604
License: Public Domain

Fourth Court of Appeals
                                           San Antonio, Texas
                                      MEMORANDUM OPINION

                                               No. 04-22-00492-CV

      IN THE INTEREST OF J.A.M., J.W.M., V.S.M., N.J.M., L.V.M., L.D.M., and D.A.M.,
                                     Children

                        From the 150th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
                                     Trial Court No. 2021-PA-01074
                               Honorable Kimberly Burley, Judge Presiding

Opinion by:         Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Sitting:            Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
                    Beth Watkins, Justice
                    Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

Delivered and Filed: January 11, 2023

AFFIRMED

           Dad appeals the trial court’s order terminating his parental rights to his children, J.A.M.,

J.W.M., V.S.M., N.J.M., L.V.M., L.D.M., and D.A.M. 1 His court-appointed counsel filed an

Anders brief. Dad submitted no response on his own behalf. Because there are no arguable

grounds for review or reversible error, we affirm the trial court’s order.

1
    We refer to Appellant and the children using aliases. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 109.002(d); TEX. R. APP. P. 9.8.
                                                                                                    04-22-00492-CV

                                                 BACKGROUND

         Dad’s case was originally reported to the Department of Family and Protective Services

after two of the children developed bruises that the parents could not justify. 2 Around that time,

Dad also had a warrant pending for his arrest based on the allegation that he strangled Mom.

         Over the course of Dad’s case, he refused to sign his service plan, and he refused to engage

in services because he did not believe in the legitimacy of the Department’s case. Dad did not

allow the caseworkers into his home, and he only visited his children twice. Early in the case, Dad

expressed his wish to relinquish his rights, but then stated that he changed his mind. Nevertheless,

Dad refused to participate in his case, including requests for drug testing. He verbally abused one

of the caseworkers who asked him to test.

         Early in the case, the children asked about their parents, but after about six months, they

stopped inquiring. In counseling, the children mentioned that Dad would beat them with a belt

and leave marks. They mentioned their parents fighting in their presence, and they talked about

Dad choking Mom. The three oldest children stated that they did not want to return to their parents.

Visits with their parents, when they occurred, were emotionally detrimental to the children.

Neither the counselor nor the caseworkers involved in the case recommended that the children be

returned to their parents.

         Dad did not attend trial. In the interest of the children’s well-being, the trial court

terminated Dad’s parental rights. The trial court cited, in addition to the children’s best interests,

subsections (D) (knowingly allowing children to remain in endangering conditions), (E)

(knowingly endangering children), (N) (constructive abandonment), and (O) (failure to complete

court-ordered services) of Texas Family Code section 161.001(b)(1).

2
  Mom’s parental rights were also at issue during the trial, but this appeal only concerns Dad, and we only recite the
facts related to his case.

                                                        -2-
                                                                                           04-22-00492-CV

        At the time of trial, all seven children who were the subjects of this case were living with

foster placements and doing well.

                                            ANDERS BRIEF

        Dad’s court-appointed counsel filed a brief containing a professional evaluation of the

record and a motion to withdraw. The brief recites the relevant facts and procedural background,

including brief summaries of the record. The brief summarizes witnesses’ testimony which

includes ample evidence supporting the trial court’s findings. The brief concludes 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). The record shows

counsel sent a copy of the Anders brief, the motion to withdraw, and a form to request a free copy

of the appellate record to Dad’s last known address. Counsel thereby advised Dad of his right to

review the record and file his own brief. We ordered Dad to file his pro se brief, if any, not later

than November 2, 2022. This court received no brief, motion, or correspondence from Dad. The

court’s order was returned in the mail. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 408 n.21 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2008) (“A defendant who fails to keep his attorney informed of his current address forfeits

the right to receive a copy of the Anders brief and the right to file a pro se brief.”).

        Having carefully reviewed the record and counsel’s brief, we conclude the evidence was

legally and factually sufficient to support the trial court’s findings by clear and convincing

evidence. We further conclude that there are no plausible grounds to reverse the termination order.

We affirm the trial court’s order.

                                      MOTION TO WITHDRAW

        In his motion to withdraw, court-appointed appellate counsel cites the fact that Dad’s

appeal is frivolous and without merit. However, counsel’s duty to Dad is not yet complete. See

                                                  -3-
                                                                                   04-22-00492-CV

TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 107.016(2); TEX. R. CIV. P. 10; In re A.M., 495 S.W.3d 573, 583 (Tex.

App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2016, pet. denied) (“If the [parent] wishes to pursue an appeal to the

Supreme Court of Texas, ‘appointed counsel’s obligations can be satisfied by filing a petition for

review that satisfies the standards for an Anders brief.’”) (quoting In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d at 27–

28). The motion to withdraw is denied.

                                                 Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

                                               -4-