L. M. v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services ( 2014 )

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-14-00624-CV
L. M., Appellant
v.
Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 98TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NO. D-1-FM-13-006568, HONORABLE AMY CLARK MEACHUM, JUDGE PRESIDING
MEMORANDUM OPINION
L.M. appeals from the trial court’s order terminating her parental rights to her minor
child, L.L. See Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001. In support of its petition to terminate L.M.’s parental
rights, the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (the Department) alleged that L.M.
failed to comply with the terms of a court order that established the specific actions L.M. had to take
to achieve reunification with her daughter after her removal from L.M. for abuse or neglect. See id.
§ 161.001(1)(O). The Department also alleged that termination of L.M.’s parental rights was in
L.L.’s best interest. See id. § 161.001(2). Following a termination hearing, the trial court found by
clear and convincing evidence that a statutory ground for terminating L.M.’s parental rights existed
and that termination was in L.L.’s best interest.1
1
The trial court also terminated the parental rights of P.L., L.L.’s father. P.L. has not
appealed the trial court’s judgment.
On appeal, L.M.’s court-appointed attorney has filed an Anders brief informing this
Court that she has made a diligent review of the appellate record and can find no arguable grounds
to be advanced on appeal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). The brief meets the
requirements of Anders by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why
there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See Taylor v. Texas Dep’t of Protective & Regulatory
Servs., 160 S.W.3d 641, 646–47 (Tex. App.—Austin 2005, pet. denied) (applying Anders procedure
in appeal from termination of parental rights). Counsel has provided L.M. with a copy of the Anders
brief along with a notice advising L.M. of her right to examine the appellate record and to file a
pro se brief. No pro se brief has been filed.
Upon receiving an Anders brief, we must conduct a full examination of all of the
proceedings to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80
(1988). We have reviewed the entire record, including the Anders brief submitted on L.M.’s behalf,
and we have found nothing that would arguably support an appeal. We agree that the appeal is
frivolous and without merit. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s order terminating L.M.’s
parental rights and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw as attorney of record.
__________________________________________
Scott K. Field, Justice
Before Justices Puryear, Pemberton, and Field
Affirmed
Filed: December 17, 2014
2