In the Interest of L.H.H., a Child v. the State of Texas ( 2024 )

Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-24-00356-CV
In the Interest of L.H.H., a Child
From the 456th District Court, Guadalupe County, Texas
Trial Court No. 23-1292-CV-E
Honorable Thomas Nathaniel Stuckey, Judge Presiding
Opinion by: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice
Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice
Irene Rios, Justice
Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice
Delivered and Filed: November 13, 2024
AFFIRMED
Appellant L.H.H. (“Father”) appeals the trial court’s order terminating his parental rights
to his child, L.H.H. 1 The trial court found, by clear and convincing evidence, that Father had
engaged in the conduct described by Texas Family Code section 161.001(b)(1)(E), (O), and (P)
and that termination of Father’s parental rights was in the child’s best interest. See TEX. FAM.
CODE ANN. § 161.001(b)(1)(E), (O), (P), (b)(2).
Father’s court-appointed appellate counsel filed a motion to withdraw and a brief
containing a professional evaluation of the record, concluding there are no arguable grounds for
1
To protect the identities of the minor children in this appeal, we refer to appellant and the children by their initials.
See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 109.002(d); TEX. R. APP. P. 9.8(b)(2).
04-24-00356-CV
reversal of the termination order. 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 Father with a copy of the brief and the motion to withdraw, advised Father of his right
to review the record and file his own brief, and informed Father how to obtain a copy of the record,
providing him with a form motion for access to the appellate record. We issued an order setting a
deadline for Father to file a pro se brief, but Father did not file such a brief.
After reviewing the appellate record and appointed counsel’s 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 id. at 27 & n.7 (holding that counsel’s obligations in parental
termination case extend through exhaustion or waiver of all appeals and that withdrawal should be
permitted by court of appeals “only for good cause” (citing TEX. R. CIV. P. 10)).
Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice
-2-