In the Interest of L.M.H., a child--Appeal from 45th Judicial District Court of Bexar County (majority)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-12-00369-CV IN THE INTEREST OF L.M.H., a Child From the 45th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2010-PA-02099 Honorable Charles E. Montemayor, Judge Presiding 1 Opinion by: Marialyn Barnard, Justice Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice Marialyn Barnard, Justice Delivered and Filed: October 3, 2012 MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED; AFFIRMED Appellant father, J.P., appeals the trial court s judgment terminating his parental rights to L.M.H. The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services ( the Department ) moved to have appellant s parental rights terminated on a variety of grounds. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. §§ 161.001(1)(A)-(F), (H), (M)-(Q) (West Supp. 2012). After a bench trial, the trial court found appellant s parental rights should be terminated because he: (1) constructively abandoned L.M.H., and (2) failed to comply with the provision of a court order that established the actions necessary for him to obtain the return of L.M.H. See id. §§ 161.001(1)(N), (O). The trial court also determined termination would be in the best interest of the child. See id. § 161.001(2). 1 The Honorable Barbara Nellermoe is the presiding judge of the 45th Judicial District Court of Bexar County, Texas. The order of termination was signed by Associate Judge Charles E. Montemayor. 04-12-00369-CV Appellant s court-appointed appellate attorney has filed a motion to withdraw and a brief containing a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating there are no arguable grounds to be advanced and concluding the appeal is frivolous. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). See In re R.R., No. 04-03-00096-CV, 2003 WL 21157944, *4 (Tex. App. San Antonio May 21, 2003, order) (applying Anders procedure to appeals from orders terminating parental rights), disp. on merits, 2003 WL 22080522 (Tex. App. San Antonio Sept. 10, 2003, no pet.) (mem. op.). Appellant was provided a copy of the brief and informed of his right to file his own brief. See Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 85-86 (Tex. App. San Antonio July 23, 1997, no pet.); In re R.R., 2003 WL 21157944, at *4. Appellant did not file a pro se brief. We have reviewed the record and the attorney s brief and we agree with counsel that the appellate points do not present a substantial question for appellate review. Accordingly, we hold the trial court did not err in terminating appellant s parental rights. We grant the motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court s judgment. Marialyn Barnard, Justice -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.
