in the Interest of B.A.H., a Child ( 2010 )

i i i i i i
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-10-00004-CV
IN THE INTEREST OF B.A.H., a Minor Child
From the 131st Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2009-PA-00256
Honorable Richard H. Garcia, Judge Presiding
Opinion by: Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice
Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice
Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice
Steven C. Hilbig, Justice
Delivered and Filed: July 21, 2010
AFFIRMED
Derrick O. seeks to appeal the trial court’s termination of his parental rights to his minor
child, B.A.H.,1 and challenges the trial court’s finding that his appeal is frivolous. See TEX . FAM .
CODE ANN . § 263.405(d)(3), (g) (Vernon 2008). Derrick’s court-appointed appellate attorney has
filed a brief representing that he has conducted a professional evaluation of the record and
determined the appellate points are without merit. Counsel concludes the appeal is frivolous. The
brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). See In re R.R., No. 04-
… To protect the privacy of the parties in this case, we identify the child by initials and the child’s father
1
by his first name only. See T EX . F AM . C O D E A N N . § 109.002(d) (Vernon 2008).
04-10-00004-CV
03-00096-CV, 2003 WL 21157944, at *4 (Tex. App.—San Antonio May 21, 2003, order) (applying
Anders procedure to appeals from orders terminating parental rights), disp. on merits, 2003 WL
22080522 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Sept. 10, 2003, no pet.). In compliance with the procedure in
Anders, counsel delivered a copy of counsel’s brief to Derrick, who was advised of his right to
examine the record and to file his own pro se brief if he disagreed with counsel’s determination
regarding the merits of the appeal. See Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 85-86 (Tex. App.—San
Antonio 1997, no pet.). No pro se brief was filed. Derrick’s attorney has also filed a motion to
withdraw.
We have reviewed the record on appeal and counsel’s brief, and we agree that the appellate
points do not present a substantial question for appellate review, and are therefore frivolous. See
TEX . CIV . PRAC. & REM . CODE ANN . § 13.003(b) (Vernon 2002); see also TEX . FAM . CODE ANN .
§ 263.405(d)(3) (incorporating section 13.003(b) by reference). Accordingly, we affirm the trial
court’s judgment, and grant appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw. Nichols, 954 S.W.2d at 85-86.
Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice
-2-