in the Interest of J.A.M., J.W.M., V.S.M., N.J.M., L.V.M., L.D.M., and D.A.M.

Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-22-00492-CV
IN THE INTEREST OF J.A.M., J.W.M., V.S.M., N.J.M., L.V.M., L.D.M., and D.A.M.,
Children
From the 150th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2021-PA-01074
Honorable Kimberly Burley, Judge Presiding
Opinion by: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
Sitting: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
Beth Watkins, Justice
Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice
Delivered and Filed: January 11, 2023
AFFIRMED
Dad appeals the trial court’s order terminating his parental rights to his children, J.A.M.,
J.W.M., V.S.M., N.J.M., L.V.M., L.D.M., and D.A.M. 1 His court-appointed counsel filed an
Anders brief. Dad submitted no response on his own behalf. Because there are no arguable
grounds for review or reversible error, we affirm the trial court’s order.
1
We refer to Appellant and the children using aliases. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 109.002(d); TEX. R. APP. P. 9.8.
04-22-00492-CV
BACKGROUND
Dad’s case was originally reported to the Department of Family and Protective Services
after two of the children developed bruises that the parents could not justify. 2 Around that time,
Dad also had a warrant pending for his arrest based on the allegation that he strangled Mom.
Over the course of Dad’s case, he refused to sign his service plan, and he refused to engage
in services because he did not believe in the legitimacy of the Department’s case. Dad did not
allow the caseworkers into his home, and he only visited his children twice. Early in the case, Dad
expressed his wish to relinquish his rights, but then stated that he changed his mind. Nevertheless,
Dad refused to participate in his case, including requests for drug testing. He verbally abused one
of the caseworkers who asked him to test.
Early in the case, the children asked about their parents, but after about six months, they
stopped inquiring. In counseling, the children mentioned that Dad would beat them with a belt
and leave marks. They mentioned their parents fighting in their presence, and they talked about
Dad choking Mom. The three oldest children stated that they did not want to return to their parents.
Visits with their parents, when they occurred, were emotionally detrimental to the children.
Neither the counselor nor the caseworkers involved in the case recommended that the children be
returned to their parents.
Dad did not attend trial. In the interest of the children’s well-being, the trial court
terminated Dad’s parental rights. The trial court cited, in addition to the children’s best interests,
subsections (D) (knowingly allowing children to remain in endangering conditions), (E)
(knowingly endangering children), (N) (constructive abandonment), and (O) (failure to complete
court-ordered services) of Texas Family Code section 161.001(b)(1).
2
Mom’s parental rights were also at issue during the trial, but this appeal only concerns Dad, and we only recite the
facts related to his case.
-2-
04-22-00492-CV
At the time of trial, all seven children who were the subjects of this case were living with
foster placements and doing well.
ANDERS BRIEF
Dad’s court-appointed counsel filed a brief containing a professional evaluation of the
record and a motion to withdraw. The brief recites the relevant facts and procedural background,
including brief summaries of the record. The brief summarizes witnesses’ testimony which
includes ample evidence supporting the trial court’s findings. The brief concludes there are no
arguable grounds to reverse 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) (applying Anders procedures to parental rights termination cases). The record shows
counsel sent a copy of the Anders brief, the motion to withdraw, and a form to request a free copy
of the appellate record to Dad’s last known address. Counsel thereby advised Dad of his right to
review the record and file his own brief. We ordered Dad to file his pro se brief, if any, not later
than November 2, 2022. This court received no brief, motion, or correspondence from Dad. The
court’s order was returned in the mail. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 408 n.21 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2008) (“A defendant who fails to keep his attorney informed of his current address forfeits
the right to receive a copy of the Anders brief and the right to file a pro se brief.”).
Having carefully reviewed the record and counsel’s brief, we conclude the evidence was
legally and factually sufficient to support the trial court’s findings by clear and convincing
evidence. We further conclude that there are no plausible grounds to reverse the termination order.
We affirm the trial court’s order.
MOTION TO WITHDRAW
In his motion to withdraw, court-appointed appellate counsel cites the fact that Dad’s
appeal is frivolous and without merit. However, counsel’s duty to Dad is not yet complete. See
-3-
04-22-00492-CV
TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 107.016(2); TEX. R. CIV. P. 10; In re A.M., 495 S.W.3d 573, 583 (Tex.
App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2016, pet. denied) (“If the [parent] wishes to pursue an appeal to the
Supreme Court of Texas, ‘appointed counsel’s obligations can be satisfied by filing a petition for
review that satisfies the standards for an Anders brief.’”) (quoting In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d at 27–
28). The motion to withdraw is denied.
Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
-4-