In the Interest of A. G. C. M. II v. Department of Family and Protective Services
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Opinion issued December 13, 2012 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas ____________ NO. 01-12-00654-CV ____________ IN THE INTEREST OF A.G.C.M., II, A CHILD On Appeal from the 315th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2012-00688J MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, D.S.,1 appeals the trial court s final order terminating her parental rights to the minor child, A.G.C.M., II. Appellant s appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw, along with an Anders brief asserting that the appeal is without merit and that there are no arguable grounds for reversal. See Anders v. California, 1 To protect the identity of the minor child, we refer to appellant and the child by initials. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. ยง 109.002(d) (West Supp. 2012); TEX. R. APP. P. 9.8. 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967). We affirm the trial court s judgment and grant counsel s motion to withdraw. The procedures set forth in Anders are applicable to an appeal from a trial court s order terminating parental rights when, as here, the appellant s appointed appellate counsel concludes that there are no non-frivolous issues to assert on appeal. See Taylor v. Texas Dep t of Protective and Regulatory Servs., 160 S.W.3d 641, 646 47 (Tex. App. Austin 2005, pet. denied); In re D.E.S., 135 S.W.3d 326, 330 (Tex. App. Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, no pet.); In re K.D., 127 S.W.3d 66, 67 (Tex. App. Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, no pet.). Counsel has filed a brief in accordance with Anders. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400. Counsel presents a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrates why there are no arguable grounds for reversal. See id.; Taylor, 160 S.W.3d at 646 47. Counsel concludes that, after a thorough review of the record, appellant s appeal of the termination of her parental rights is frivolous and without merit. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; In re K.D., 127 S.W.3d at 67. Counsel has certified that she has delivered a copy of the brief to appellant and has informed appellant of her right to examine the appellate record and to file a response. See In re D.E.S., 135 S.W.3d at 329; In re K.D., 127 S.W.3d at 67. This Court has also notified appellant of her right to review the record and to file a pro se response. Appellant has not filed a response. 2 We have independently reviewed the entire record and counsel s Anders brief. See In re D.E.S., 135 S.W.3d at 330; In re K.D., 127 S.W.3d at 67; see also Johnson v. Dep t of Family & Protective Servs., No. 01-08-00749-CV, 2010 WL 5186806, at *1 (Tex. App. Houston [1st Dist.] Dec. 23, 2010, no pet.) (not designated for publication). We agree with counsel s assessment that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court and grant counsel s motion to withdraw.2 Attorney Amy Ngo Lacy must immediately send the notice required by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 6.5(c) and file a copy of the notice with the Clerk of this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 6.5(c). Laura Carter Higley Justice Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Higley, and Sharp. 2 Appointed counsel still has a duty to inform appellant of the result of this appeal and notify appellant that she may, on her own, pursue a petition for review in the Supreme Court of Texas. See In re K.D., 127 S.W.3d 66, 68 at n.3 (Tex. App. Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, no pet.). 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.
