in the Interest of A. G. C. M. II v. Department of Family and Protective Services ( 2012 )

Opinion issued December 13, 2012
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
____________
NO. 01-12-00654-CV
____________
IN THE INTEREST OF A.G.C.M., II, A CHILD
On Appeal from the 315th District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 2012-00688J
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, D.S.,1 appeals the trial court’s final order terminating her parental
rights to the minor child, A.G.C.M., II. Appellant’s appointed counsel has filed a
motion to withdraw, along with an Anders brief asserting that the appeal is without
merit and that there are no arguable grounds for reversal. See Anders v. California,
1
To protect the identity of the minor child, we refer to appellant and the child by
initials. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 109.002(d) (West Supp. 2012); TEX. R. APP.
P. 9.8.
386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967). We affirm the trial court’s judgment and
grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
The procedures set forth in Anders are applicable to an appeal from a trial
court’s order terminating parental rights when, as here, the appellant’s appointed
appellate counsel concludes that there are no non-frivolous issues to assert on
appeal. See Taylor v. Texas Dep’t of Protective and Regulatory Servs., 160
S.W.3d 641, 646–47 (Tex. App.—Austin 2005, pet. denied); In re D.E.S., 135
S.W.3d 326, 330 (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.).
Counsel has filed a brief in accordance with Anders. See Anders, 386 U.S.
at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400. Counsel presents a professional evaluation of the record
and demonstrates why there are no arguable grounds for reversal. See id.; Taylor,
160 S.W.3d at 646–47. Counsel concludes that, after a thorough review of the
record, appellant’s appeal of the termination of her parental rights is frivolous and
without merit. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; In re K.D., 127
S.W.3d at 67. Counsel has certified that she has delivered a copy of the brief to
appellant and has informed appellant of her right to examine the appellate record
and to file a response. See In re D.E.S., 135 S.W.3d at 329; In re K.D., 127
S.W.3d at 67. This Court has also notified appellant of her right to review the
record and to file a pro se response. Appellant has not filed a response.
2
We have independently reviewed the entire record and counsel’s Anders
brief. See In re D.E.S., 135 S.W.3d at 330; In re K.D., 127 S.W.3d at 67; see also
Johnson v. Dep’t of Family & Protective Servs., No. 01-08-00749-CV, 2010 WL
5186806, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Dec. 23, 2010, no pet.) (not
designated for publication). We agree with counsel’s assessment that the appeal is
frivolous and without merit.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court and grant counsel’s
motion to withdraw.2 Attorney Amy Ngo Lacy must immediately send the notice
required by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 6.5(c) and file a copy of the notice
with the Clerk of this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 6.5(c).
Laura Carter Higley
Justice
Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Higley, and Sharp.
2
Appointed counsel still has a duty to inform appellant of the result of this appeal
and notify appellant that she may, on her own, pursue a petition for review in the
Supreme Court of Texas. See In re K.D., 127 S.W.3d 66, 68 at n.3 (Tex. App.—
Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, no pet.).
3