in the Interest of A.M. AKA A.R., Minor Children ( 2012 )

Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-12-00459-CV
IN THE INTEREST OF A.M. a/k/a A.R. and X.R., Minor Children
From the 408th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2011-PA-00088
Honorable Charles E. Montemayor, Judge Presiding
Opinion by: Marialyn Barnard, Justice
Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice
Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice
Marialyn Barnard, Justice
Delivered and Filed: December 12, 2012
MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED; AFFIRMED
Appellant mother, Angela, appeals the trial court’s judgment terminating her parental
rights to A.M. a/k/a A.R and X.R. The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services
(“the Department”) moved to have appellant’s parental rights terminated on a variety of grounds.
See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. §§ 161.001(1)(A)-(G), (I)-(K), (M-S); 161.003(a) (West Supp. 2012).
After a bench trial, the trial court found appellant’s parental rights should be terminated because
she: (1) failed to comply with the provision of a court order that established the actions necessary
for her to obtain the return of the children; and (2) used a controlled substance in a manner that
endangered the health or safety of the children. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. §§ 161.001(1)(O),
(P). The trial court also determined termination would be in the best interest of the child. Id.
§ 161.001(2).
 04-12-00459-CV
Appellant’s court-appointed appellate attorney has filed a motion to withdraw and a brief
containing a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating there are no arguable grounds to
be advanced and concluding the appeal is frivolous. 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,
*4 (Tex. App.—San Antonio May 21, 2003, order) (applying Anders procedure to appeals from
orders terminating parental rights), disp. on merits, 2003 WL 22080522 (Tex. App.—San
Antonio Sept. 10, 2003, no pet.) (mem. op.). Appellant was provided a copy of the brief and
informed of her right to file her own brief. See Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 85-86 (Tex.
App.—San Antonio July 23, 1997, no pet.); In re R.R., 2003 WL 21157944, at *4. Appellant did
not file a pro se brief.
We have reviewed the record and the attorney’s brief and we agree with counsel that the
appellate points do not present a substantial question for appellate review. Accordingly, we hold
the trial court did not err in terminating appellant’s parental rights. We grant the motion to
withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment.
Marialyn Barnard, Justice
-2-