Court Opinion

ID: 9838124
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-05 13:09:06.2296+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:32.873843
License: Public Domain

Fourth Court of Appeals
                                      San Antonio, Texas
                                 MEMORANDUM OPINION

                                          No. 04-23-00564-CV

                  IN THE INTEREST OF M.A.W., A.V.W., and L.R.W., Children

                     From the 285th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
                                  Trial Court No. 2022-PA-00951
                              Honorable Raul Perales, Judge Presiding

Opinion by:       Beth Watkins, Justice

Sitting:          Irene Rios, Justice
                  Beth Watkins, Justice
                  Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice

Delivered and Filed: August 30, 2023

AFFIRMED; MOTION TO WITHDRAW DENIED

           Appellant M.N.W. appeals the trial court’s order terminating his parental rights to his

children M.A.W., A.V.W., and L.R.W. His 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 he provided M.N.W. with a copy of the brief and the motion

to withdraw, advised M.N.W. of his right to review the record and file his own brief, and informed

M.N.W. how to obtain a copy of the record, providing him with a form motion for access to the
                                                                                      04-23-00564-CV

appellate record. We issued an order setting a deadline for M.N.W. to file a pro se brief. However,

M.N.W. did not request the appellate record or file a pro se brief.

       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-