Opinion
04-21-00505-CV
04-20-2022
IN THE INTEREST OF J.A.D.B.
From the 288th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2020PA00164 Honorable Charles E. Montemayor, Associate Judge Presiding
Sitting: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Irene Rios, Justice Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice
This is an accelerated appeal from a Final Order in Suit Affecting the Parent-Child Relationship. In the trial court, the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services sought termination of the parent-child relationship between eleven-year-old J.A.D.B. and his parents. After a bench trial, the court named (1) the Department as permanent managing conservator of J.A.D.B., and (2) the parents as possessory conservators of J.A.D.B. The parents were also ordered to pay child support. Appellant Mother timely filed a notice of appeal.
To protect the privacy of the parties in this case, we identify the children and the parents by their initials. See Tex. Fam. Code § 109.002(d).
Appellant Mother's court-appointed appellate attorney has filed a brief containing a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating that there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. Counsel concluded that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets 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) (applying Anders procedures in appeal from order terminating parental rights). Counsel certified that he sent Appellant Mother a copy of the brief and a letter informing her of her right to review the record and file her own brief. Counsel also provided appellant a form to use to request access to the record. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 320 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d at 27. This court then set a deadline for appellant to file a pro se brief. Appellant Mother did not request access to the record or file a pro se brief.
We have reviewed the record and the attorney's Anders brief, and we agree with counsel that the appeal is without merit. Therefore, we affirm the trial court's order.
Counsel filed a motion to withdraw in conjunction with his 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; In re A.M., 495 S.W.3d 573, 583 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2016, pet. denied). Counsel's duty to his 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 § 107.016; In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d at 27. After this court has rendered its decision, appointed counsel's obligations to his client may be satisfied 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 & n.14.