In the Interest of T.R.Z., J.M.A., H.A.A., and I.A.Appeal from 57th Judicial District Court of Bexar County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-13-00146-CV IN THE INTEREST OF T.R.Z., J.M.A., H.A.A., and I.A. From the 57th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2011-PA-03206 Honorable Charles E. Montemayor, Judge Presiding PER CURIAM Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Delivered and Filed: August 28, 2013 AFFIRMED This is an appeal from the trial court s termination of Appellant I.A. Sr. s parental rights to T.R.Z., J.M.A., H.A.A., and I.A. The trial court terminated Appellant s parental rights based on grounds set forth in Texas Family Code section 161.001. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 161.001(1)(E), (N), (O), (Q) (West Supp. 2012). The court also determined that terminating Appellant s parental rights was in the best interest of each child: T.R.Z., J.M.A., H.A.A., and I.A. See id. § 161.001(2) (West 2008). Appellant s court-appointed attorney filed a brief containing a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. Therefore, counsel concludes the appeal is without merit. See Fletcher v. Dep t of Family & Protective Servs., 277 S.W.3d 58, 64 (Tex. App. Houston [1st Dist.] 2009, no pet.) (affirming a judgment because the 04-13-00146-CV judgment could be upheld on an unchallenged ground). The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). See In re D.D., 279 S.W.3d 849, 850 (Tex. App. Dallas 2009, pet. denied) (applying Anders procedure in an appeal from termination of parental rights); In re D.E.S., 135 S.W.3d 326, 329 (Tex. App. Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, no pet.); In re RR, No. 04 03 00096 CV, 2003 WL 21157944, at *4 (Tex. App. San Antonio May 21, 2003, no pet.) (mem. op.); In re K.S.M., 61 S.W.3d 632, 634 (Tex. App. Tyler 2001, no pet.). Counsel provided Appellant with a copy of the Anders brief and informed him of his right to review the record and file a pro se brief. Appellant has not filed a pro se brief. After reviewing the record, we agree that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed, and counsel s motion to withdraw is granted. See Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 85 86 (Tex. App. San Antonio 1997, no pet.); Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App. San Antonio 1996, no pet.). PER CURIAM -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.
