S. M. v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services ( 2014 )

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-14-00177-CV
S. M., Appellant
v.
Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF CALDWELL COUNTY, 421ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NO. 12-FL-335, HONORABLE TODD A. BLOMERTH, JUDGE PRESIDING
MEMORANDUM OPINION
S.M. appeals from a final district court order terminating her parental rights. During
the termination hearing, the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (the Department)
presented undisputed evidence that S.M. had used marihuana while pregnant with her child and had
failed to fully comply with the provisions of a court order that specifically established the actions
necessary for her to obtain the return of her child. Additionally, the Department presented other
evidence tending to show that the Department’s proposed placement for the child—a licensed
vocational nurse who had previously cared for numerous other children—was more stable and
beneficial to the child’s well-being than placement with S.M. At the conclusion of the hearing, the
district court found by clear and convincing evidence that S.M. had committed at least one of several
alleged statutory grounds for termination and that termination was in the best interest of the child.1
1
See Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001(1)(D), (E), (I), (O), (2).
S.M.’s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and a brief concluding
that the appeal is frivolous and without merit.2 The brief meets the requirements of Anders
v. California by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating why there
are no arguable grounds to be advanced on appeal.3 Counsel has provided S.M. with a copy of
the brief and informed her of her right to review the record and file a pro se brief. No pro se brief
has been filed.
We have reviewed the record and counsel’s brief and agree that the appeal is
frivolous. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal.4 We affirm the
district court’s order and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
__________________________________________
Bob Pemberton, Justice
Before Chief Justice Jones, Justices Pemberton and Rose
Affirmed
Filed: June 19, 2014
2
See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967); Taylor v. Texas Dep’t of Protective
& Regulatory Servs., 160 S.W.3d 641, 646-47 (Tex. App.—Austin 2005, pet. denied) (applying
Anders procedure in appeal from termination of parental rights).
3
See 386 U.S. at 744; Taylor, 160 S.W.3d at 646-47.
4
See Anders, 386 U.S. at 741-44; Taylor, 160 S.W.3d at 646-47.
2