In the Interest of D.L.C a child v. Department of Family and Protective Services Appeal from 315th District Court of Harris County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed December 20, 2022. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-22-00675-CV IN THE INTEREST OF D.L.C., A CHILD On Appeal from the 315th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2020-01658J MEMORANDUM OPINION Mother’s counsel contends that there isn’t a non-frivolous ground to challenge the trial court’s judgment terminating Mother’s parental rights to the Child because there is legally and factually sufficient evidence to support at least one predicate ground for termination, including endangerment under subsection (E), and that termination is in the Child’s best interest. 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 In re D.E.S., 135 S.W.3d 326, 329 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, no pet.) (Anders procedures apply to an appeal from termination of parental rights). This court and Mother’s counsel notified Mother that counsel filed an Anders brief, and this court informed her about how to obtain a copy of the record and her right to file a pro se response. See id. at 329–30. No pro se response has been filed. We have reviewed the record and counsel’s brief and agree that there isn’t a non-frivolous ground to challenge the trial court’s judgment terminating Mother’s parental rights because the evidence is legally and factually sufficient to support the trial court’s best-interest finding and the finding that Mother engaged in conduct that endangered the physical or emotional well-being of the Child under Section 161.001(b)(1)(E) of the Family Code. Counsel thoroughly analyzed the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the trial court’s findings. We find no reversible error in the record. A detailed discussion of this issue would add nothing to the jurisprudence of the state. See In re D.E.S., 135 S.W.3d at 330. Accordingly, the trial court’s judgment is affirmed. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Chief Justice Christopher and Justices Wise and Hassan. 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.
