In the Interest of E.M.S. and M.N.R., children v. --Appeal from 57th Judicial District Court of Bexar County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-12-00464-CV IN THE INTEREST OF E.M.S. and M.N.R., Children From the 57th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2011-PA-02147 Honorable Brenda Chapman, Judge Presiding PER CURIAM Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice Rebecca Simmons, Justice Delivered and Filed: November 28, 2012 AFFIRMED Appellant Mother A.S. and Appellant Father G.R. appeal the trial court s order terminating their parental rights to E.M.S. and M.N.R. Both of appellants court-appointed attorneys have filed briefs containing a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating that there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. Both of appellants court-appointed attorneys have, respectively, concluded that this appeal is without merit. Both briefs meet the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). See In re R.R., No. 04 03 00096 CV, 2003 WL 21157944, at * 4 (Tex. App. San Antonio 2003, order) (applying Anders procedure in appeal from termination of parental rights), disp. on merits, 2003 WL 22080522 (Tex. App. San Antonio 2003, no pet.). Further, Appellant Mother A.S. s counsel states that he provided Appellant Mother A.S. with a copy of the brief and informed her of her right to review the record 04-12-00464-CV and file a pro se brief. Similarly, Appellant Father G.R. s counsel states that he provided Appellant Father G.R. with a copy of the brief and informed him of his right to review the record and file a pro se brief. Neither Appellant Mother A.S. nor Appellant Father G.R. has filed a pro se brief. After reviewing the record and counsels briefs, we agree that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. Therefore, the Order of Termination signed by the trial court is affirmed. We grant counsels motions to withdraw. Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 86 (Tex. App. San Antonio 1997, no pet.); Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n. 1 (Tex. App. San Antonio 1996, no pet.). PER CURIAM -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.
