Court Opinion

ID: 9913086
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-26 20:08:59.318645+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:07:15.261247
License: Public Domain

Fourth Court of Appeals
                                      San Antonio, Texas
                                  MEMORANDUM OPINION

                                          No. 04-23-00667-CV

                           IN THE INTEREST OF Z.J. and N.J., Children

                      From the 45th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
                                   Trial Court No. 2022-PA-00579
                              Honorable Raul Perales, Judge Presiding

Opinion by:       Beth Watkins, Justice

Sitting:          Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
                  Beth Watkins, Justice
                  Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice

Delivered and Filed: December 20, 2023

AFFIRMED; MOTION TO WITHDRAW DENIED

           Appellant R.C. appeals the trial court’s June 21, 2023 order terminating his parental rights

to his son, N.J., and appointing him possessory conservator of his daughter, Z.J. 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 trial court’s

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 R.C. with a copy

of the brief and the motion to withdraw, advised R.C. of his right to review the record and file his

own brief, and informed R.C. how to obtain a copy of the record, providing him with a form motion
                                                                                      04-23-00667-CV

for access to the appellate record. On September 27, 2023, we granted R.C.’s request for a copy of

the appellate record, and on November 7, 2023, R.C. filed a pro se brief.

       After reviewing the appellate record, appointed counsel’s Anders brief, and R.C.’s pro se

brief, we conclude no plausible grounds exist for reversal of the trial court’s order. Accordingly,

we affirm the trial court’s 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-