in the Interest of N.F.M. and S.R.M. ( 2019 )

Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-18-00475-CV
IN THE INTEREST OF N.F.M. and S.R.M., Children
From the 57th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2017PA00070
Honorable John D. Gabriel Jr., Judge Presiding 1
Opinion by: Beth Watkins, Justice
Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice
Beth Watkins, Justice
Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice
Delivered and Filed: March 6, 2019
MOTION TO WITHDRAW DENIED; AFFIRMED
Appellant mother (“Mother”) appeals the trial court’s order terminating her parental rights
to her children, N.F.M. and S.R.M. Mother’s 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 minimally 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) (recognizing that Anders procedures apply in parental termination cases).
Additionally, counsel represents that he provided Mother with a copy of the brief and the motion
to withdraw, advised Mother of her right to review the record and file her own brief, and informed
1
The Honorable Antonia Arteaga is the presiding judge of the 57th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas.
However, the Honorable John D. Gabriel, retired and sitting by assignment, signed the order of termination that is the
subject of this appeal.
04-18-00475-CV
Mother how to obtain a copy of the record, providing her with a form motion for access to the
appellate record. We issued an order setting deadlines for Mother to request the appellate record
and file a pro se brief. However, Mother neither requested the appellate record nor filed 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. Because appointed counsel has not asserted any ground for withdrawal
other than his conclusion that the appeal is frivolous, we deny the motion to withdraw. See id. at
27–28 (holding that counsel’s obligations in parental termination cases extend through exhaustion
or waiver of all appeals, including filing petition for review in Texas Supreme Court).
Beth Watkins, Justice
-2-