in the Interest of C. M. S, a Child ( 2019 )

Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-18-00872-CV
IN THE INTEREST OF C.M.S., a Child
From the 288th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2015-PA-01181
Honorable Richard Garcia, Judge Presiding
Opinion by: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice
Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
Beth Watkins, Justice
Delivered and Filed: April 17, 2019
AFFIRMED; MOTION TO WITHDRAW DENIED
Appellant Mom appeals the trial court’s order terminating her parental rights to her child
C.M.S. 1 For the reasons given below, we affirm the trial court’s order.
The Department sought temporary conservatorship of the child for Mom’s alleged illegal
drug use, with weapons and illegal drugs in the home and accessible to ten-year-old C.M.S. 2 The
trial court heard evidence that the Department reviewed Mom’s service plan with her. Mom
handwrote notes rebutting some of the factual allegations, and she signed the plan. Mom was
ordered to complete individual counseling, psychological evaluation, psychosocial assessment,
anger management course, parenting course, and drug treatment. She completed her psychological
1
To protect the minor’s identity, we refer to the mother and the child using aliases. See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.8.
2
Because Mom is the only appellant, we limit our recitation of the facts to those that pertain to Mom or the child.
04-18-00872-CV
evaluation, but she did not complete her other ordered services. Mom has been incarcerated
repeatedly during the plan period, and she is currently incarcerated. When she was not
incarcerated, Mom visited C.M.S. only three of twenty-two scheduled visits, and she failed to
report for even a single drug test. Mom denied she has a drug problem, but the case worker said
Mom has a history of drug abuse for at least three years, and Mom has not made any positive
changes in her life. The placement family loves C.M.S. and wants to adopt. C.M.S. is a straight
A student, is thriving, and is bonded to the placement parents and their children.
The trial court found Mom’s course of conduct met statutory grounds (E), (F), (N), and
(O), and terminating Mom’s rights was in the child’s best interest. It terminated Mom’s parental
rights to the child. Mom appeals.
ANDERS BRIEF
Mom’s court-appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw and a brief containing a
professional evaluation of the record. The brief concludes there are no arguable grounds to reverse
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) (applying Anders
procedures to parental rights termination cases). Counsel also represents that he provided Mom
with a copy of the Anders brief, his motion to withdraw, and a form to request a free copy of the
appellate record. He advised Mom of her right to review the record and file her own brief.
We ordered Mom to file her pro se brief, if any, not later than March 13, 2019. Mom did
not request a copy of the record or file a pro se brief.
Having carefully reviewed the entire record and counsel’s brief, we conclude the evidence
was legally and factually sufficient to support the trial court’s findings by clear and convincing
evidence. We further conclude that there are no plausible grounds to reverse the termination order.
We affirm the trial court’s order.
-2-
04-18-00872-CV
MOTION TO WITHDRAW
In his motion to withdraw, court-appointed appellate counsel does not assert any ground
for withdrawal other than his conclusion that the appeal is frivolous. Counsel’s duty to Mom is
not yet complete; the motion to withdraw is denied. See id. at 27, n.11; see also TEX. FAM. CODE
ANN. § 107.016(3); In Interest of A.M., 495 S.W.3d 573, 583 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.]
2016, pet. denied) (“If the mother wishes to pursue an appeal to the Supreme Court of Texas,
‘appointed counsel’s obligations can be satisfied by filing a petition for review that satisfies the
standards for an Anders brief.’” (quoting In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d at 27–28)).
Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
-3-