In the Interest of J.D.-W.R., a Child--Appeal from County Court at Law No. 1 of Parker County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 2-08-498-CV IN THE INTEREST OF J.L.R., II, A.R.L.R., AND T.R., CHILDREN AND NO. 2-08-499-CV IN THE INTEREST OF J.D. W.R., A CHILD -----------FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF PARKER COUNTY ------------ MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 -----------Appellant Thomas R. appeals the trial court s orders terminating his parental rights to his children J.L.R., II, A.R.L.R., T.R., and J.D. W.R. We affirm. 1 ¦ See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4. Appellant s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and an Anders 2 brief in support stating that after diligently reviewing the record, he believes any appeal in these consolidated cases would be frivolous. The brief meets the requirements of Anders by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds of error to be advanced.3 Appellant s counsel delivered a copy of the motion and supporting brief to appellant advising him of his right to contest the motion, review the record, and file a pro se brief with this court. The time for filing such a brief has expired, and we have not received a pro se brief. The State has not filed a brief. As the reviewing appellate court, we must conduct an independent evaluation of the record to decide whether counsel is correct in determining the appeals are frivolous. 4 2 ¦ Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967). 3 ¦ See In re K.M., No. 02-01-00349-CV, 2003 WL 2006583, at *2 (Tex. App. Fort Worth May 1, 2003, no pet.) (mem. op.) (citing Anders, 386 U.S. at 747, 87 S. Ct. at 1401). 4 ¦ See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). 2 Having carefully reviewed the record and the appellate brief, we agree with appellate counsel that appellant s appeals are frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeals.5 Accordingly, we affirm the trial court s termination orders and grant counsel s motion to withdraw. PER CURIAM PANEL: CAYCE, C.J.; DAUPHINOT and GARDNER, JJ. DELIVERED: August 13, 2009 5 ¦ See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); In re D.D., 279 S.W.3d 849, 850 (Tex. App. Dallas 2009, pet. denied); K.M., 2003 WL 2006583, at *3. 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.
