In the Interest of L.D., a ChildAppeal from County Court at Law No 1 of Randall County (memorandum opinion )

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo No. 07-13-00037-CV, 07-13-00038-CV IN THE INTEREST OF L.D., A CHILD IN THE INTEREST OF K.M., A CHILD On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1 Randall County, Texas Trial Court No. 8923-L1, 8944-L1, Honorable Jack Graham, Presiding June 10, 2013 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. Appellant, H.M.1, appeals an order of the trial court terminating her parental rights to L.D., her daughter, and K.M., her son. H.M. s appointed counsel has filed a brief in conformity with Anders v. California rendering her professional opinion that any issue that could be raised on appeal is frivolous and without legal merit. See 386 U.S.738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). H.M. s counsel avers that she has zealously reviewed the record in this matter and can find no arguable points of appeal. 1 To protect the parent s and child s privacy, we refer to them by initials. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 109.002(d) (West 2012); TEX. R. APP. 9.8(b). Counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and provided H.M. with a copy of the brief. Further, counsel has advised H.M. that she has the right to file a pro se response to the Anders brief. The Court has likewise advised H.M. of this right. H.M. has not favored the Court with a response. This Court has long held that an appointed attorney in a termination case might discharge her professional duty to her client by filing a brief in conformity with the Anders process. See In re A.W.T., 61 S.W.3d 87, 88-89 (Tex.App. Amarillo 2001, no pet.). Likewise, other intermediate appellate courts have so held. See Sanchez v. Tex. Dep t of Family and Protective Servs., No. 03-10-00249-CV, 2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 2162, at *1, (Tex.App. Austin March 24, 2011, no pet.) (mem. op.); In re L.K.H, No. 1110-00080-CV, 2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 1706, at *2-4, (Tex.App Eastland March 10, 2011, no pet.) (mem. op.); In re D.D., 279 S.W.3d 849, 849-50 (Tex.App. Dallas 2009, pet. denied); In re D.E.S., 135 S.W.3d 326, 326-27 (Tex.App. Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, no pet.). We have conducted our own review of the record in this matter and have come to the conclusion that there are no arguable points of appeal. See In re A.W.T., 61 S.W.3d at 89. We, therefore, grant counsel s motion to withdraw. We remind counsel that H.M. has the right to file a pro se petition for review to the Texas Supreme Court. Finally, having found no arguable points of appeal requiring reversal, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. Mackey K. Hancock 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.