E. L. and S. L. F., Jr. v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •       TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
    NO. 03-14-00785-CV
    E. L. and S. L. F., Jr., Appellants
    v.
    Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee
    FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 201ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
    NO. D-1-FM-13-005219, HONORABLE AMY CLARK MEACHUM, JUDGE PRESIDING
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    Appellants E.L. and S.L.F., Jr. appeal from the trial court’s order terminating their
    parental rights to their minor child. See Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001. In support of its petition to
    terminate E.L. and S.L.F.’s parental rights, the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services
    (the Department) alleged that E.L. and S.L.F.: (1) knowingly placed or knowingly allowed the child
    to remain in conditions or surroundings that endangered the physical or emotional well-being of
    the child, see 
    id. § 161.001(D);
    (2) engaged in conduct or knowingly placed the child with persons
    who engaged in conduct that endangered the physical or emotional well-being of the child, see
    
    id. § 161.001(E);
    and (3) failed to comply with the terms of a court order that specifically established
    the actions necessary to obtain the return of the child from the conservatorship of the Department,
    see 
    id. § 161.001(1)(O).
    The Department also alleged that termination of E.L. and S.L.F.’s parental
    rights was in the child’s best interest. See 
    id. § 161.001(2).
    Following a bench trial, the trial court
    found by clear and convincing evidence that all three statutory grounds for terminating E.L. and
    S.L.F.’s parental rights existed and that termination was in the child’s best interest.
    On appeal, E.L. and S.L.F. have separate appellate attorneys who each filed a brief
    stating that after reviewing the record, they believe that the appeal is frivolous.1 Each appellate
    counsel has presented a professional evaluation of the record and explained why he or she believes
    there are no arguable grounds for reversal. Neither E.L. nor S.L.F. has filed a pro se brief or made
    contact with this Court. We have conducted our own review of the record and we agree that the
    appeal is frivolous. We therefore affirm the trial court’s final decree. We grant counsels’ motions
    to withdraw as attorneys of record.
    __________________________________________
    David Puryear, Justice
    Before Justices Puryear, Pemberton, and Bourland
    Affirmed
    Filed: May 21, 2015
    1
    This and other Texas courts have held that it is appropriate in a parental termination case
    to file a brief asserting that the appeal is frivolous. See, e.g., Matthews v. Texas Dep’t of Protective
    & Regulatory Servs., No. 03-04-00184-CV, 
    2005 WL 366871
    (Tex. App.—Austin Feb. 17, 2005,
    no pet.) (mem. op.); In re D.E.S., 
    135 S.W.3d 326
    , 329 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2004,
    no pet.); In re K.D., 
    127 S.W.3d 66
    , 67 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, no pet.).
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 03-14-00785-CV

Filed Date: 5/21/2015

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021