In the Interest of L.B., Child Appeal from 237th District Court of Lubbock County (memorandum opinion by chief justice quinn)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo No. 07-15-00330-CV IN THE INTEREST OF L.B., CHILD On Appeal from the 237th District Court Lubbock County, Texas Trial Court No. 2013-509,708, Honorable Leslie Hatch, Presiding December 7, 2015 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ. Appellant, R.R., had his parental rights to L.B. terminated and has appealed from that order. His appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw, together with an Anders1 brief. See In re A.W.T, 61 S.W.3d 87, 88 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2001, no pet.) (applying Anders to termination proceedings). Therein, she certified that the appeal was without merit. The certification was made after diligently searching the record, according to appointed counsel. Along with her brief, counsel attached a copy of a letter sent to appellant informing him of his right to file a response pro se and stating that the record has been provided to him. By letter dated November 13, 2015, this court also informed 1 Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). appellant of his right to tender his own response and set December 2, 2015, as the deadline to do so.2 To date, we have not received a response. In compliance with the principles enunciated in Anders, appellate counsel discussed the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence to support one of the trial court’s statutory findings as a basis for termination and the finding that termination is in the best interests of the child. She also addressed other potential issues for appeal. However, in each circumstance, she explained why none of the foregoing areas presented arguable grounds for appeal. We conducted our own review of the record to uncover any potential error. None were found. Accordingly, we concur with the representation of appellant’s counsel, grant the motion to withdraw, and affirm the judgment. Brian Quinn Chief Justice 2 Given the accelerated nature of the appeal, see TEX. R. APP. P. 28.4 (accelerating appeals in parental termination cases) and TEX. R. JUD. ADMIN. 6.2(a) (obligating the appellate court to dispose of an appeal from an order terminating parental rights within 180 days of the date the notice of appeal is filed), only twenty days is granted appellant’s counsel to file an appellant’s brief. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6 (a). Therefore, twenty days is granted the appellant to file a pro se response to that brief in an Anders situation. 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.
