Court Opinion

ID: 9389462
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-25 17:10:43.293913+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:27.172419
License: Public Domain

Fourth Court of Appeals
                                      San Antonio, Texas
                                  MEMORANDUM OPINION
                                          No. 04-22-00859-CV

                               IN THE INTEREST OF L.R.L., a Child

                     From the 81st Judicial District Court, La Salle County, Texas
                                 Trial Court No. 21-04-00043-CVL
                        Honorable Melissa Uram-Degerolami, Judge Presiding

Opinion by:       Beth Watkins, Justice

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

Delivered and Filed: April 19, 2023

AFFIRMED; MOTION TO WITHDRAW DENIED

           Appellant M.S. appeals the trial court’s order terminating her parental rights to her child,

L.R.L. Her court-appointed appellate counsel filed a motion to withdraw and a brief containing a

professional evaluation of the record, concluding there are no arguable grounds for reversal of 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) (recognizing that Anders

procedures apply in parental termination cases). Additionally, counsel represents that she provided

M.S. with a copy of the brief and the motion to withdraw, advised M.S. of her right to review the

record and file her own brief, and informed M.S. how to obtain a copy of the record, providing her

with a form motion for access to the appellate record. We issued an order setting a deadline for

M.S. to file a pro se brief. However, M.S. did not request the appellate record or file a pro se brief.
                                                                                      04-22-00859-CV

       After reviewing the appellate record and appointed counsel’s brief, we conclude no

plausible grounds exist for reversal of the termination order. Accordingly, we affirm the trial

court’s termination order. We deny counsel’s motion to withdraw because it does not show good

cause for withdrawal. See id. at 27 & n.7 (holding that counsel’s obligations in a parental

termination case extend through exhaustion or waiver of all appeals and that withdrawal should be

permitted by a court of appeals “only for good cause” (citing TEX. R. CIV. P. 10)).

                                                 Beth Watkins, Justice

                                               -2-