Court Opinion

ID: 9385781
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-09 08:11:53.798234+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:33.578851
License: Public Domain

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed April 6, 2023.

                                        In The

                      Fourteenth Court of Appeals

                                NO. 14-22-00747-CV

             IN THE INTEREST OF M.R. AND N.R., CHILDREN

                     On Appeal from the 306th District Court
                            Galveston County, Texas
                        Trial Court Cause No. 20CP0074

                   MEMORANDUM OPINION

      Appellant S.R. appeals a final decree signed October 7, 2022, terminating
his parental rights to the children who are the subject of this suit.

      Appellant’s appointed counsel filed a brief in which she concludes the
appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), presenting a professional evaluation of
the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See
High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 811-13 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). The
Anders procedures apply to an appeal from the termination of parental rights when
an appointed attorney concludes there are no non-frivolous issues to assert on
appeal. In re D.E.S., 135 S.W.3d 326, 329 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.]
2004, no pet.).

       On December 20, 2022, Appellant was notified of the right to file a pro se
response to the Anders brief. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex.
Crim. App. 1991) (en banc); In re D.E.S., 135 S.W.3d at 329-30. More than thirty
days have elapsed and, as of this date, no pro se response has been filed.

       We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel’s brief and agree the
appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. Further, we find no reversible error
in the record. A discussion of the brief would add nothing to the jurisprudence of
the state.1

       1
          The trial court found that Appellant (1) “knowingly placed or knowingly allowed the
child to remain in conditions or surroundings which endanger the physical or emotional well-
being of the child, pursuant to § 161.001(b)(1)(D), Texas Family Code”; (2) “engaged in conduct
or knowingly placed the child with persons who engaged in conduct which endangers the
physical or emotional well-being of the child, pursuant to § 161.001(b)(1)(E), Texas Family
Code”; (3) “constructively abandoned the children . . . pursuant to § 161.001(b)(1)(N), Texas
Family Code”; (4) “failed to comply with the provisions of a court order that specifically
established the actions necessary for the father to obtain the return of the child . . . pursuant to
§ 161.001(b)(1)(O), Texas Family Code”; and (5) “used a controlled substance . . . in a manner
that endangered the health or safety of the child . . . pursuant to § 161.001(b)(1)(P), Texas
Family Code.” The Texas Supreme Court has not decided whether a court of appeals is required
to address findings in an Anders disposition of a termination of parental rights on predicate
grounds D or E. See In re E.K., 608 S.W.3d 815, 815-16 (Tex. 2020) (Green, J., concurring in
denial of petition for review) (citing In re N.G., 577 S.W.3d 230 (Tex. 2019)). Our court has not
done so. See, e.g., In re J.P., No. 14-21-00272-CV, 2021 WL 4164782, at *1 (Tex. App.—
Houston [14th Dist.] Sept. 14, 2021, pet. denied) (mem. op.); In re K.J.R., No. 14-20-00479-CV,
2021 WL 244985, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Jan. 26, 2021, no pet.) (mem. op.); In
re A.J.A.R., No. 14-20-00084-CV, 2020 WL 4260343, at *9-10 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th
Dist.] July 24, 2020, pet. denied).

                                                 2
      Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

                                     PER CURIAM

Panel Consists of Justices Bourliot, Hassan, and Poissant.

                                         3