in the Interest of J.T.H. ( 2019 )

Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-19-00515-CV
In the Interest of J.T.H.
From the 131st Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2018-PA-01512
Honorable Charles E. Montemayor, Judge Presiding
Opinion by: Irene Rios, Justice
Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice
Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice
Irene Rios, Justice
Delivered and Filed: December 18, 2019
AFFIRMED; MOTION TO WITHDRAW DENIED
This is an appeal from a judgment terminating appellant’s parental rights to his child, J.T.H.
Appellant’s court-appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw and a brief. In the brief, counsel
discusses the applicable law and examines the record in this case. After examining the record,
counsel concludes this appeal is frivolous and without merit. Counsel’s brief satisfies the
requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). See In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24,
27 n.10 (Tex. 2016) (noting Anders procedures apply in parental termination cases).
Counsel’s motion to withdraw states that appellant was provided a copy of the Anders brief
and advised of his right to request the record and file a pro se brief. We issued an order notifying
appellant that he had the right to request the record and file a pro se brief. Appellant did not request
the record or file a pro se brief.
04-19-00515-CV
After conducting an independent evaluation of the record, we agree this appeal is frivolous
and without merit. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. Nevertheless, we deny
counsel’s motion to withdraw because it fails to demonstrate good cause for counsel to withdraw.
See id. at 27 & n.7 (providing that once counsel is appointed in a parental termination case he
“should be permitted to withdraw only for good cause . . . .”). Counsel’s obligation to his client
extends through the exhaustion or waiver of all appeals. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN.
§ 107.016(3)(B); In re P.M. 520 S.W.3d at 27. If appellant desires to pursue this appeal to the
Texas Supreme Court, counsel may satisfy his obligation “by filing a petition for review that
satisfies the standards for an Anders brief.” See In re P.M. 520 S.W.3d at 27-28 & n.14.
Irene Rios, Justice
-2-