In the Interest of T.H.Appeal from 317th District Court of Jefferson County (memorandum opinion by chief justice mckeithen)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont ________________ NO. 09-13-00298-CV ________________ IN THE INTEREST OF T.H. __________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 317th District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. C-216,393 __________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant D.M., the father of the minor child T.H., appeals the trial court s final order in a suit affecting the parent-child relationship. We affirm the trial court s order. The Department of Family and Protective Services ( the Department ) filed an original petition for protection of a child, for conservatorship, and for termination in a suit affecting the parent-child relationship. After conducting an evidentiary hearing, the trial court did not terminate D.M. s parental rights, but instead appointed T.H. s maternal grandparents permanent managing conservators 1 of T.H. and appointed D.M. possessory conservator. The trial court s order provided that D.M. would have access to T.H. unless he should appear to be under the influence; gave the managing conservators the right to supervise D.M. s visits and to require D.M. to submit to a drug test; and prohibited D.M. from having overnight or unsupervised visits with T.H. D.M. s appointed counsel submitted a brief in which he concludes that there are no arguable grounds to be advanced on appeal. The brief provides counsel s professional evaluation of the record, and counsel notified D.M. that he found no meritorious issues for appeal, provided a copy of the record to D.M., and notified D.M. of his right to file a pro se brief. Because this proceeding began as one in which the Department sought termination of parental rights, this Court accepted the Anders brief filed by appointed counsel. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); see generally Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); In the Interest of L.D.T., 161 S.W.3d 728, 731 (Tex. App. Beaumont 2005, no pet.) (applying Anders procedure in an appeal from termination of parental rights). This Court also notified appellant of his right to file a pro se response, as well as the deadline for filing it. We received no response from D.M. After reviewing the clerk s record, the reporter s record, and counsel s brief, we agree with counsel s conclusion that there are no plausible grounds for appeal. 2 We find no arguable error requiring us to order appointment of new counsel to rebrief this appeal. Compare Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court s order appointing D.M. possessory conservator of the minor child T.H. and grant appellate counsel s motion to withdraw. AFFIRMED. ______________________________ STEVE McKEITHEN Chief Justice Submitted on November 5, 2013 Opinion Delivered November 21, 2013 Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ. 3
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.
