in the Interest of E. D. D., III, a Child ( 2019 )

Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-19-00138-CV
IN THE INTEREST OF E.D.D., III, a Child
From the 408th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2017PA02283
Honorable Martha Tanner, Judge Presiding
Opinion by: Irene Rios, Justice
Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice
Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
Irene Rios, Justice
Delivered and Filed: August 7, 2019
AFFIRMED; MOTION TO WITHDRAW DENIED
Appellant Mother appeals the trial court’s order terminating her parental rights to her child,
Edward. 1 The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (“the Department”) filed this
suit, seeking termination of the parent-child relationship between the child and Mother. After a
bench trial, the court found one independent ground 2 upon which to terminate Mother’s parental
rights and found that termination was in Edward’s best interest. The trial court signed a
termination order and designated Edward’s father as Sole Managing Conservator. Mother timely
appealed the trial court’s order.
1
To protect the identity of a minor child in an appeal from an order terminating parental rights, we refer to the mother
as “Mother” and the child by alias. We refer to E.D.D., III as “Edward.” See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 109.002(d);
TEX. R. APP. P. 9.8(b)(2).
2
Specifically, the trial court found evidence Mother “constructively abandoned the child … .” See TEX. FAM. CODE
ANN. § 161.001(b)(1)(N).
04-19-00138-CV
Appellant’s court-appointed appellate attorney filed a brief in which he concluded there
are no non-frivolous issues to be raised on appeal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967);
In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 n.10 (Tex. 2016) (stating that Anders procedures protect indigent
parents’ statutory right to counsel on appeal in parental rights termination cases and apply in those
cases). Counsel certified that he sent Mother a copy of the brief and a letter advising her of her
rights to review the record and to file a pro se brief. Counsel also provided Mother a form motion
to use to request access to the record. In addition, counsel filed a motion to withdraw. This court
issued an order which set deadlines for Mother to request access to the record and to file a pro se
brief and abating counsel’s motion to withdraw. Mother did not request access to the appellate
record or file a pro se brief.
We have thoroughly reviewed the record and counsel’s Anders brief. The record
establishes by clear and convincing evidence the grounds for termination and that termination is
in the child’s best interest. See TEX. FAM. CODE § 161.001; In re J.O.A., 283 S.W.3d 336, 344-45
(Tex. 2009); In re A.V., 113 S.W.3d 355, 362 (Tex. 2003). Upon a thorough review of the record,
we conclude the evidence is legally and factually sufficient to support the termination order and
there are no other arguably meritorious grounds for appeal. Therefore, we affirm the trial court’s
termination order.
Counsel filed a motion to withdraw in conjunction with his Anders brief. We deny
counsel’s motion to withdraw because it does not assert any ground for withdrawal apart from
counsel’s conclusion that the appeal is frivolous. See In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d at 27; In re A.M.,
495 S.W.3d 573, 583 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2016, pet. denied). Counsel’s duty to his
client extends through the exhaustion or waiver of all appeals, including the filing of a petition for
review in the Texas Supreme Court. See TEX. FAM. CODE § 107.016(3); In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d
at 27. After this court has rendered its decision, appointed counsel’s obligations to his client may
-2-
04-19-00138-CV
be met by filing a petition for review that satisfies the standards for an Anders brief. In re P.M.,
520 S.W.3d at 27-28 & n.14.
Irene Rios, Justice
-3-