in the Interest of J.L.R., a Child ( 2018 )

In The
Court of Appeals
Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
No. 07-18-00142-CV
IN THE INTEREST OF J.L.R., A CHILD
On Appeal from the 222nd District Court
Deaf Smith County, Texas
Trial Court No. DR-16L-180, Honorable Roland D. Saul, Presiding
July 12, 2018
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PARKER, JJ.
Appellant D.L., the mother, appeals the termination of her parental rights to her
daughter, J.L.R.1 See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 161.001 (West Supp. 2017). The mother’s
court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw supported by an Anders
brief. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967); In re
P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 (Tex. 2016) (per curiam). We will affirm the final order of the
trial court and take no action on counsel’s motion to withdraw.
1To protect the child’s privacy, we will refer to the child’s mother as D.L. and “the
mother” and to the child as J.L.R. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 109.002(d) (West Supp.
2017); TEX. R. APP. P. 9.8(b).
J.L.R. was born November 18, 2016. Final hearing testimony and documentary
evidence showed that during her pregnancy with J.L.R. the mother used
methamphetamine “at least every other day,” consumed a significant amount of liquor
nightly, and smoked tobacco. She admitted using methamphetamine on the day of
J.L.R.’s birth. J.L.R. tested positive at birth for amphetamines, methamphetamines and
TCH, and experienced “some withdrawal issues.”
J.L.R. was removed from the mother in December 2016 and appellee, the Texas
Department of Family and Protective Services, was appointed temporary managing
conservator. Placement was with fictive kin. Under the Department’s family plan of
service, the mother was required to perform various services to obtain the return of J.L.R.
Although the service plan was made a court order, the mother did not perform the required
services.
Evidence showed the mother was nineteen when J.L.R. was born, and reported
she first used methamphetamine at age eleven. There was evidence she used
methamphetamine daily at times. There also was evidence of her convictions for
possession of controlled substances in March 2016 and September 2017. The
September 2017 conviction resulted from the revocation of her deferred adjudication
community supervision imposed in July 2015. Documents from criminal proceedings
stated she also had admitted the use of methamphetamine in September 2015, February
2016, and November 2016.
Final hearing in the matter of J.L.R. was to the bench in April 2018. The
Department requested termination of the mother’s parental rights, leading to adoption of
2
the child by the fictive kin placement.2 J.L.R.’s attorney ad litem supported the
Department’s position on termination and the prospective adoption. The court found
termination of the mother’s parental rights was in the best interest of J.L.R. and the mother
had violated the predicate grounds of Family Code subsections
161.001(b)(1)(D),(E),(N),(O),(P)&(R). TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 161.001(b)(1)(D),(E),(N),
(O),(P) & (R) (West Supp. 2017).
Counsel’s Anders brief presents a professional evaluation of the record
demonstrating there are no arguable grounds for appeal. Anders, 386 U.S. at 744-45.
We find counsel’s motion to withdraw and brief meet the requirements of Anders. Counsel
also has demonstrated she provided a copy of her brief and the record to the mother and
notified her of her right to file a pro se response if she desired. Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d
313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). By letter from the clerk, we also notified the mother of
her opportunity to respond to counsel’s brief. She did not respond.
When presented with a motion to withdraw supported by an Anders brief we are
required to independently examine the entire record and decide whether counsel has
correctly determined the record does not present an arguable ground for appeal. Stafford
v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); In re A.W.T., 61 S.W.3d 87, 89
(Tex. App.—Amarillo 2001, no pet.). We have carefully reviewed the record and
counsel’s Anders brief and agree with counsel that the record presents no arguable
2J.L.R.’s father’s parental rights were terminated in the same proceeding; he has
not appealed.
3
grounds for appeal. In re K.R.C., 346 S.W.3d 618, 619 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2009, no
pet.).
The trial court’s order terminating the mother’s parental rights to J.L.R. is affirmed.
We take no action on counsel’s motion to withdraw but call counsel’s attention to the
continuing duty of representation through the exhaustion of proceedings, which may
include the filing of a petition for review. In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d at 27.
James T. Campbell
Justice
4