in the Interest of Z.M.M., a Child ( 2021 )

Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-21-00281-CV
IN THE INTEREST OF Z.M.M., a Child
From the 25th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County, Texas
Trial Court No. 20-0370-CV-A
Honorable Thomas Nathaniel Stuckey, Judge Presiding
Opinion by: Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice
Sitting: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
Beth Watkins, Justice
Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice
Delivered and Filed: November 17, 2021
AFFIRMED
Appellant C.L.P. appeals the trial court’s order terminating his parental rights to his child
Z.M.M. (born 2020). Appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel filed a motion to withdraw
and a brief containing a professional evaluation of the record. Counsel identifies and analyzes two
potential appellate issues but ultimately concludes no non-frivolous grounds can be advanced in
support of reversal of the trial court’s judgment. See In re L.M.D.J., 04-20-00086-CV, 2020 WL
3815916, at *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio July 8, 2020, pet. denied) (mem. op.). The brief satisfies
the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). See In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27
n.10 (Tex. 2016) (per curiam) (recognizing that Anders procedures apply in parental termination
cases). Additionally, counsel represents that he provided C.L.P. with a copy of the brief and the
motion to withdraw and advised C.L.P. of his right to review the record and file his own brief. We
04-21-00281-CV
issued an order setting a deadline for C.L.P. to file a pro se brief and held counsel’s motion to
withdraw in abeyance. C.L.P. filed a pro se brief, and the State filed a waiver of its right to file a
brief.
Once we determine that the procedural requirements of Anders have been satisfied, we
engage in an independent review of the briefs and the record to determine whether: (1) we agree
with counsel’s conclusion that the appeal is wholly frivolous, in which case we issue an opinion
stating there is no reversible error; or (2) we conclude that arguable grounds for appeal exist, in
which case we remand the cause to the trial court. See In re C.C., 04-19-00844-CV, 2020 WL
2139307, at *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio May 6, 2020, no pet.) (mem. op.). After reviewing the
appellate record, appointed counsel’s Anders brief, and C.L.P.’s pro se brief, we conclude no
plausible grounds exist for reversal of the termination order. Accordingly, we affirm the trial
court’s termination order.
We deny counsel’s motion to withdraw because it does not show good cause for
withdrawal. See In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d at 27 & n.7 (holding that counsel’s obligations in a parental
termination case extend through exhaustion or waiver of all appeals and that withdrawal should be
permitted by a court of appeals “only for good cause” (citing TEX. R. CIV. P. 10)). If appellant
desires to pursue this matter in the Texas Supreme Court, counsel may fulfill his duty “by filing a
petition for review that satisfies the standards for an Anders brief.” See id. at 28 & n.14; see also
In re M.D.C., 04-20-00606-CV, 2021 WL 2117915, at *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio May 26, 2021,
no pet.) (mem. op.).
Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice
-2-