A. H. v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services Appeal from County Court at Law of Bastrop County (memorandum opinion )

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-14-00513-CV A. H., Appellant v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW OF BASTROP COUNTY NO. 13-15922, HONORABLE BENTON ESKEW, JUDGE PRESIDING MEMORANDUM OPINION After a non-jury trial, the county court at law terminated appellant A.H.’s parental rights to a child, Alice.1 The trial court found that appellant committed several acts and omissions justifying termination of his parental rights. See Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001(1)(B)-(F), (N), (O). The trial court also found that termination of his parental rights was in the child’s best interest. Appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief in which he discusses the record, the elements of the cause of action, and the standard of review and concludes that appellant has no arguable grounds for appeal and that his appeal is wholly frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 811 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); see also Taylor v. Texas Dep’t of Protective & Regulatory Servs., 160 S.W.3d 641, 646-47 (Tex. App.—Austin 2005, pet. denied) (applying Anders procedure in appeal from 1 Alice is an alias used to shield the child’s identity. See Tex. R. App. P. 9.8. termination of parental rights). Appellant’s counsel has certified to this Court that he provided appellant with a copy of the brief, along with a notice advising appellant of his right to examine the appellate record and to file a pro se brief. No pro se brief has been filed. Having thoroughly reviewed the record and counsel’s brief, we agree with counsel’s assessment that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. We affirm the judgment and grant appellant’s counsel’s motion to withdraw as counsel. Jeff Rose, Justice Before Chief Justice Jones, Justices Rose and Goodwin Affirmed Filed: November 5, 2014 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.