In the Interest of C.L., a child Appeal from 305th Judicial District Court of Dallas County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
AFFIRMED; Opinion Filed October 13, 2017. In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-17-00455-CV IN THE INTEREST OF C.L., A CHILD On Appeal from the 305th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. JC-16-00298-X MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Lang, Myers, and Stoddart Opinion by Justice Myers Mother appeals the trial court’s order appointing Father sole managing conservator and appointing her possessory conservator of their child. The trial court’s order followed the provisions of a mediated settlement agreement signed by all the parties and their attorneys. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 153.0071 (West 2014). Mother’s appointed counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that the record does not contain any reversible error that was preserved for appellate review. Counsel states in the brief that he served Mother by mail at her last known address with a copy of the brief and advised Mother of her right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se response. In addition, this Court provided Mother a copy of the Anders brief and notified her of her right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se response. Mother did not file a pro se response. The procedures established in Anders are applicable where, as here, the appellant’s appointed counsel concludes that there are no non-frivolous issues to assert on appeal. See In re D.D., 279 S.W.3d 849, 849–50 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2009, pet. denied). This Court is not required to address the merits of each claim raised in an Anders brief or a pro se response. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); In re D.D., 279 S.W.3d at 850 (citing Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 827). Instead, our duty is to determine whether there are any arguable grounds for reversal and, if so, to remand the case to the trial court so that new counsel may be appointed to address the issues. See In re D.D., 279 S.W.3d at 850. In the Anders brief, counsel for Mother presents a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for reversal and concluding that Mother’s appeal is frivolous and without merit. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. We independently reviewed the entire record and counsel’s Anders brief and agree that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the record that could arguably support the appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. /Lana Myers/ LANA MYERS JUSTICE 170455F.P05 –2– Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT IN THE INTEREST OF C.L., A CHILD On Appeal from the 305th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. JC-16-00298-X. Opinion delivered by Justice Myers. Justices Lang and Stoddart participating. No. 05-17-00455-CV In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED. Judgment entered this 13th day of October, 2017. –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.
