In the Interest of A.A.D. and J.D.D., Children Appeal from 300th District Court of Brazoria County (memorandum opinion per curiam)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed November 9, 2017. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-17-00454-CV IN THE INTEREST OF A.A.D. AND J.D.D., CHILDREN On Appeal from the 300th District Court Brazoria County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 86900-F MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, L.D., appeals a final decree signed May 30, 2017, terminating her parental rights to the children who are the subject of this suit. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. Appellant’s appointed counsel filed a brief in which she concludes the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). The Anders procedures are applicable to an appeal from the termination of parental rights when an appointed attorney concludes that there are no non-frivolous issues to assert on appeal. In re D.E.S., 135 S.W.3d 326, 329 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, no pet.). A copy of counsel’s brief was delivered to appellant and appellant was notified of the right to request the record and file a pro se response. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); In re D.E.S., 135 S.W.3d at 329–30. More than sixty days have elapsed and as of this date, no pro se response has been filed. We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel’s brief and agree the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. Further, we find no reversible error in the record. A discussion of the brief would add nothing to the jurisprudence of the state. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Christopher, Brown, and Wise. 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.