In the Interest of B.A.H., A child--Appeal from 131st Judicial District Court of Bexar County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
i i i i i i MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-10-00004-CV IN THE INTEREST OF B.A.H., a Minor Child From the 131st Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2009-PA-00256 Honorable Richard H. Garcia, Judge Presiding Opinion by: Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice Steven C. Hilbig, Justice Delivered and Filed: July 21, 2010 AFFIRMED Derrick O. seeks to appeal the trial court s termination of his parental rights to his minor child, B.A.H.,1 and challenges the trial court s finding that his appeal is frivolous. See TEX . FAM . CODE ANN . § 263.405(d)(3), (g) (Vernon 2008). Derrick s court-appointed appellate attorney has filed a brief representing that he has conducted a professional evaluation of the record and determined the appellate points are without merit. Counsel concludes the appeal is frivolous. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). See In re R.R., No. 04- ¦ To protect the privacy of the parties in this case, we identify the child by initials and the child s father by his first name only. See T EX . F AM . C O D E A N N . § 109.002(d) (Vernon 2008). 1 04-10-00004-CV 03-00096-CV, 2003 WL 21157944, at *4 (Tex. App. San Antonio May 21, 2003, order) (applying Anders procedure to appeals from orders terminating parental rights), disp. on merits, 2003 WL 22080522 (Tex. App. San Antonio Sept. 10, 2003, no pet.). In compliance with the procedure in Anders, counsel delivered a copy of counsel s brief to Derrick, who was advised of his right to examine the record and to file his own pro se brief if he disagreed with counsel s determination regarding the merits of the appeal. See Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 85-86 (Tex. App. San Antonio 1997, no pet.). No pro se brief was filed. Derrick s attorney has also filed a motion to withdraw. We have reviewed the record on appeal and counsel s brief, and we agree that the appellate points do not present a substantial question for appellate review, and are therefore frivolous. See TEX . CIV . PRAC. & REM . CODE ANN . § 13.003(b) (Vernon 2002); see also TEX . FAM . CODE ANN . § 263.405(d)(3) (incorporating section 13.003(b) by reference). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court s judgment, and grant appellate counsel s motion to withdraw. Nichols, 954 S.W.2d at 85-86. Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
