in the Interest of F.A.L. III and J.E.A., Children

Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-18-00398-CV
IN THE INTEREST OF F.A.L. III and J.E.A., Children
From the 285th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2017PA01098
Honorable Charles E. Montemayor, Judge Presiding
Opinion by: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
Sitting: Marialyn Barnard, Justice
Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
Irene Rios, Justice
Delivered and Filed: October 31, 2018
AFFIRMED; MOTION TO WITHDRAW DENIED
Appellant Mom appeals the trial court’s order terminating her parental rights to her children
F.A.L. III and J.E.A. For the reasons given below, we affirm the trial court’s order.
The Department petitioned for temporary conservatorship of the children because of
Mom’s ongoing use of heroin and her arrest for prostitution. The trial court heard evidence that
Mom did not complete many of her ordered services, she had not demonstrated she could obtain
stable employment and housing or provide for the children’s basic needs, the children were
thriving in their foster home, and the placement was leading to permanency. The trial court found
Mom’s course of conduct met statutory grounds (N) and (O), and terminating her rights was in the
children’s best interests. It terminated Mom’s parental rights to the children. Mom appeals.
04-18-00398-CV
ANDERS BRIEF
Mom’s court-appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw and a brief containing a
professional evaluation of the record. 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). Counsel also represents that he provided Mom
with a copy of the Anders brief, his motion to withdraw, and a form to request a free copy of the
appellate record. He advised Mom of her right to review the record and file her own brief.
We ordered Mom to file her pro se brief, if any, not later than September 17, 2018. Mom
did not request a copy of the record or file a pro se brief.
Having carefully reviewed the entire 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.
Thus, we affirm the trial court’s order.
MOTION TO WITHDRAW
In his motion to withdraw, court-appointed appellate counsel does not assert any ground
for withdrawal other than his conclusion that the appeal is frivolous. Counsel’s duty to Mom is
not yet complete; the motion to withdraw is denied. See id. at 27, n.11; see also TEX. FAM. CODE
ANN. § 107.016(3); In Interest of A.M., 495 S.W.3d 573, 583 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.]
2016, pet. denied) (“If the mother 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)).
Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
-2-