in the Interest of G.F.G., a Child ( 2012 )

MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-11-00899-CV
IN THE INTEREST OF G.F.G., a Child
From the 225th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2011-PA-01319
Honorable Peter A. Sakai, Judge Presiding
Opinion by: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice
Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice
Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice
Rebecca Simmons, Justice
Delivered and Filed: May 23, 2012
AFFIRMED
This is an appeal from the trial court’s termination of appellant’s parental rights. The
State moved to have appellant’s parental rights terminated on a variety of grounds. See TEX.
FAM. CODE ANN. § 161.001(1)(M), (N), (O) (West Supp. 2010) (she had had her parent-child
relationship terminated with respect to two other children; constructive abandonment; and failure
to comply with the provisions of a court order). At the conclusion of the termination hearing,
the trial court stated “Mother is prior termination and constructive abandonment.” Id.
§ 161.001(1)(M), (N). However, in its order of termination, the trial court terminated appellant’s
parental rights based on constructive abandonment, failure to comply with a court order, and that
termination was in the child’s best interest. Id. § 161.001(1)(N), (O), (2).
04-11-00899-CV
Appellant’s court-appointed attorney filed a brief containing a professional evaluation of
the record and demonstrating that there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. Counsel
concludes that the appeal is without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). See In re R.R., No. 04-03-00096-CV, 2003 WL 21157944, at
* 4 (Tex. App.—San Antonio May 21, 2003, no pet.) (applying Anders procedure in appeal from
termination of parental rights), disp. on merits, 2003 WL 22080522 (Tex. App.—San Antonio
Sept. 10, 2003, no pet.) (mem. op.). Counsel asks this court to amend the termination order to
reflect the trial court’s oral pronouncement. Counsel provided appellant with a copy of the brief.
Appellant was informed of her right to review the record and advised of her right to file a pro se
brief. Appellant has not filed a brief.
After reviewing the record and counsel’s brief, we agree that the appeal is frivolous and
without merit. We decline to amend the termination order because the evidence at trial supports
the findings contained in the order. Therefore, the termination order is affirmed. We GRANT
counsel’s motion to withdraw. Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 86 (Tex. App.—San Antonio
1997, no pet.); Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, no pet.).
Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice
-2-