Court Opinion

ID: 9954412
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-26 12:11:13.760592+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:12:10.610191
License: Public Domain

Fourth Court of Appeals
                                          San Antonio, Texas
                                     MEMORANDUM OPINION

                                              No. 04-23-00622-CV

                                 IN THE INTEREST OF G.D.B., a Child

                      From the 225th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
                                   Trial Court No. 2022-PA-00927
                                Honorable Lisa Jarrett, Judge Presiding

Opinion by:       Irene Rios, Justice

Sitting:          Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
                  Irene Rios, Justice
                  Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

Delivered and Filed: March 20, 2024

AFFIRMED; MOTION TO WITHDRAW DENIED

           Appellant Mother appeals the trial court’s order terminating her parental rights to G.D.B.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 trial court found by clear and convincing evidence three statutory grounds 2 to terminate

Mother’s parental rights and that termination of her parental rights is in G.D.B.’s best interest.

Mother timely appealed the trial court’s order.

           Mother’s court-appointed appellate attorney filed a brief in which she concluded there are

no meritorious issues to be raised on appeal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); In re

1
  To protect the identity of a minor child in an appeal from an order terminating parental rights, we refer to appellant
as “Mother” and the child by its initials or as “the child.” See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 109.002(d); TEX. R. APP.
P. 9.8(b)(2).
2
  The trial court found termination of Mother’s parental rights warranted under subsections 161.001(b)(1)(D), (O),
and (P) of the Texas Family Code. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN § 161.001(b)(1)(D), (O), (P).
                                                                                        04-23-00622-CV

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

statutory right to counsel on appeal in parental rights termination cases and apply in those cases).

Counsel certified she sent Mother a copy of the brief and a letter advising of her rights to review

the record and to file a pro se brief. Counsel also provided Mother a form to use to request access

to the record. In addition, counsel filed a motion to withdraw. This court issued an order abating

counsel’s motion to withdraw and setting deadlines for Mother to request access to the record and

to file a pro se brief. 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 ANN. § 161.001(b); 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 her 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. Counsel’s

duty to her 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 ANN. § 107.016(2)(B); In

re P.M., 520 S.W.3d at 27. After this court has rendered its decision, appointed counsel’s

obligations to her client may 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, 28 n.14.

                                                   Irene Rios, Justice

                                                 -2-