in the Interest of A.T.H., a Child

Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-18-00423-CV
IN THE INTEREST OF A.T.H., a Child
From the 408th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2017-PA-01435
Honorable Richard Garcia, Judge Presiding
Opinion by: Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice
Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice
Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
Delivered and Filed: November 7, 2018
MOTION TO WITHDRAW DENIED; AFFIRMED
The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services filed this suit, seeking
termination of the parent-child relationship between the child A.T.H. and his mother, E.H. 1 After
a trial to the bench, the court found five independent grounds 2 to terminate E.H.’s rights and found
that termination was in A.T.H.’s best interest. The trial court signed a termination order and
designated the Department to be the child’s permanent managing conservator. E.H. timely
appealed the trial court’s order.
1
To protect the identity of the minor child, we refer to the parties by their initials. See TEX. FAM. CODE § 109.002(d);
TEX. R. APP. P. 9.8.
2
TEX. FAM. CODE § 161.001(b)(1)(M) (prior termination of parental rights pursuant to (D) or (E) for endangering
child); (N) (constructive abandonment); (O) (failure to comply with court ordered services); (P) (used controlled
substance and failed to completely address issue); and (R) (was cause of child being born addicted to illegally obtained
controlled substance).
04-18-00423-CV
Appellant’s court-appointed appellate attorney filed a brief in which he concluded there
are no non-frivolous issues to be raised on appeal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967);
In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 n.10 (Tex. 2016) (stating that Anders procedures protect indigent
parents’ statutory right to counsel on appeal in parental rights termination cases and apply in those
cases). Counsel certified that he sent E.H. a copy of the brief and a letter advising her of her rights
to review the record and to file a pro se brief. Counsel also provided E.H. a form to use to request
access to the record. In addition, counsel filed a motion to withdraw. This court issued an order
setting deadlines to request access to the record and to file a pro se brief and holding the motion
to withdraw in abatement. Appellant did not request access to the appellate record or file a pro se
brief.
We have thoroughly reviewed the record and the attorney’s Anders brief. The record
establishes by clear and convincing evidence at least one of the grounds for termination and that
termination is in A.T.H.’s best interest. See TEX. FAM. CODE § 161.001; In re J.O.A., 283 S.W.3d
336, 344-45 (Tex. 2009); In re A.V., 113 S.W.3d 355, 362 (Tex. 2003). Upon a thorough review
of the record, we conclude the evidence is legally and factually sufficient to support the termination
order and there are no other arguably meritorious grounds for appeal. Therefore, we affirm the
trial court’s termination order.
Counsel filed a motion to withdraw in conjunction with his Anders brief. We deny
counsel’s motion to withdraw because it does not assert any ground for withdrawal apart from
counsel’s conclusion that the appeal is frivolous. See In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d at 27; In re A.M.,
495 S.W.3d 573, 583 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2016, pet. denied). Counsel’s duty to his
client extends through the exhaustion or waiver of all appeals, including the filing of a petition for
review in the Texas Supreme Court. See TEX. FAM. CODE § 107.016(3); In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d
at 27. After this court has rendered its decision, appointed counsel’s obligations to his client may
-2-
04-18-00423-CV
be satisfied by filing a petition for review that satisfies the standards for an Anders brief. In re
P.M., 520 S.W.3d at 27-28 & n.14.
Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
-3-