in the Interest of P.H., a Minor Child ( 2017 )

Affirmed and Opinion Filed February 2, 2017
S In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-16-00961-CV
IN THE INTEREST OF P.H. AND T.H., MINOR CHILDREN
On Appeal from the 305th Judicial District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 15-633-X-305TH
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Francis, Stoddart, and Schenck
Opinion by Justice Francis
The Department of Family and Protective Services filed a petition to terminate the
parental rights of Mother and Father to their children, P.H. and T.H. At the time, the children
were in Mother’s possession and Father lived out of state. Both were given service plans.
One year later, the parties entered a Rule 11 agreement in which they agreed to a
dispositive placement hearing based on Mother’s motion for further orders and placement. The
parties agreed that if the trial court granted Mother’s motion, Mother would be named Permanent
Managing Conservator of the children and Father would be named Permanent Possessory
Conservator. If the court denied Mother’s motion, Father would be named Permanent Managing
Conservator and Mother would be named Permanent Possessory Conservator.
A placement hearing was held. After hearing all the evidence, the trial court denied
Mother’s motion. The Department then moved to nonsuit its cause. In the decree, the court
found it was in the best interest of the children to follow the Rule 11 agreement concerning
placement of the children, named Father as Permanent Managing Conservator and named
Mother as Permanent Possessory Conservator, and dismissed the Department as a party to the
cause.
Mother filed a notice of appeal. Her court-appointed counsel has filed an Anders brief on
her behalf, concluding that after a diligent review of the record, her appeal is frivolous and
without merit. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738; In re D.D., 279 S.W.3d 849 (Tex.
App.—Dallas 2009, pet. denied).
In reviewing an Anders brief, our duty is to determine whether there are any arguable
grounds for reversal and, if there are, to remand the case to the trial court for the appointment of
new counsel. Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); In re D.D., 279
S.W.3d at 850. The Anders brief filed by Mother’s appellate counsel presents a professional
evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for reversal. This
Court sent Mother a copy of the brief and notified her of her right to review the appellate record
and file a pro se brief. Mother did not respond. We have reviewed the entire record and the
brief. The record does not reflect any arguable grounds for reversal, and we conclude Mother’s
appeal is frivolous and without merit. To the extent counsel seeks to withdraw from the case,
we deny his request. See In re P.M., No. 15-0171, 2016 WL 1274748, at *3–4 (Tex. Apr. 1,
2016) (per curiam).
We affirm the trial court’s judgment.
/Molly Francis/
MOLLY FRANCIS
JUSTICE
160961F.P05
–2–
S
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
IN THE INTEREST OF P.H. and T.H., On Appeal from the 305th Judicial District
MINOR CHILDREN, Court, Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 15-633-X-305TH.
No. 05-16-00961-CV V. Opinion delivered by Justice Francis;
Justices Stoddart and Schenck participating.
In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court judgment is
AFFIRMED.
Judgment entered February 2, 2017.
–3–