in the Interest of J.D.L. Children ( 2011 )

MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-11-00055-CV
IN THE INTEREST OF J.D.L., S.D.L., G.J.L., R.L., J.P., T.P., T.P.
From the 285th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2009-PA-01783
Honorable Karen H. Pozza, Judge Presiding
Opinion by: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice
Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice
Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice
Rebecca Simmons, Justice
Delivered and Filed: August 3, 2011
AFFIRMED
This is an appeal from the trial court’s termination of appellant’s parental rights to her
seven children. The trial court terminated appellant’s parental rights based on five grounds set
forth in Texas Family Code section 161.001. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 161.001(1)(A), (D),
(E), (N), (O) (West Supp. 2010). The trial court also terminated appellant’s parental rights based
on four mental health grounds set forth in Texas Family Code section 161.003. Id.
§ 161.003(a)(1), (2), (3), (4) (West 2008). Finally, the court determined termination was in the
best interest of the children. Id. §§ 161.001(2), 161.003(a)(5).
Appellant’s court-appointed attorney filed a brief containing a professional evaluation of
the record and demonstrating that there are no arguable grounds to be advanced because, in
04-11-00055-CV
appellant’s motion for new trial and statement of appellate points, appellant did not challenge all
of the grounds upon which termination was based. Therefore, counsel concludes the appeal is
without merit. See Fletcher v. Dep’t of Family & Protective Servs., 277 S.W.3d 58, 64 (Tex.
App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2009, no pet.) (affirming judgment because judgment could be upheld
on unchallenged ground). The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S.
738 (1967). See In re R.R., No. 04-03-00096-CV, 2003 WL 21157944, at * 4 (Tex. App.—San
Antonio May 21, 2003, no pet.) (applying Anders procedure in appeal from termination of
parental rights). Counsel has attempted to provide appellant with a copy of the brief and inform
her of her right to review the record and of her right to file a pro se brief. This court has
attempted to contact appellant, but all mail has been returned as “undeliverable.” Appellant has
not filed a brief.
After reviewing the record, we agree that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The
judgment of the trial court is affirmed. We GRANT counsel’s motion to withdraw. Nichols v.
State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 86 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no pet.); Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d
176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, no pet.).
Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice
-2-