in the Interest of L.D., a Child

In The
Court of Appeals
Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
No. 07-13-00037-CV, 07-13-00038-CV
IN THE INTEREST OF L.D., A CHILD
IN THE INTEREST OF K.M., A CHILD
On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1
Randall County, Texas
Trial Court No. 8923-L1, 8944-L1, Honorable Jack Graham, Presiding
June 10, 2013
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.
Appellant, H.M.1, appeals an order of the trial court terminating her parental
rights to L.D., her daughter, and K.M., her son. H.M.’s appointed counsel has filed a
brief in conformity with Anders v. California rendering her professional opinion that any
issue that could be raised on appeal is frivolous and without legal merit. See 386
U.S.738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967). H.M.’s counsel avers that she has
zealously reviewed the record in this matter and can find no arguable points of appeal.
1
To protect the parent’s and child’s privacy, we refer to them by initials. See
TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 109.002(d) (West 2012); TEX. R. APP. 9.8(b).
Counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and provided H.M. with a copy of the brief.
Further, counsel has advised H.M. that she has the right to file a pro se response to the
Anders brief. The Court has likewise advised H.M. of this right. H.M. has not favored
the Court with a response.
This Court has long held that an appointed attorney in a termination case might
discharge her professional duty to her client by filing a brief in conformity with the
Anders process. See In re A.W.T., 61 S.W.3d 87, 88-89 (Tex.App.—Amarillo 2001, no
pet.). Likewise, other intermediate appellate courts have so held. See Sanchez v. Tex.
Dep’t of Family and Protective Servs., No. 03-10-00249-CV, 2011 Tex. App. LEXIS
2162, at *1, (Tex.App.—Austin March 24, 2011, no pet.) (mem. op.); In re L.K.H, No. 11-
10-00080-CV, 2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 1706, at *2-4, (Tex.App—Eastland March 10,
2011, no pet.) (mem. op.); In re D.D., 279 S.W.3d 849, 849-50 (Tex.App.—Dallas 2009,
pet. denied); In re D.E.S., 135 S.W.3d 326, 326-27 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.]
2004, no pet.).
We have conducted our own review of the record in this matter and have come to
the conclusion that there are no arguable points of appeal. See In re A.W.T., 61 S.W.3d
at 89. We, therefore, grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. We remind counsel that H.M.
has the right to file a pro se petition for review to the Texas Supreme Court. Finally,
having found no arguable points of appeal requiring reversal, we affirm the judgment of
the trial court.
Mackey K. Hancock
Justice
2