In the Interest of C.B.C., Child v. --Appeal from 57th Judicial District Court of Bexar County (memorandum opinion )

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-12-00586-CV IN THE INTEREST OF C.B.C., a Minor Child 1 From the 57th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2011-PA-02579 Honorable Janet P. Littlejohn, Judge Presiding Opinion by: Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Luz Elena Chapa, Justice Delivered and Filed: January 30, 2013 AFFIRMED This is an appeal from the trial court s termination of appellant s parental rights. Counsel for appellant has filed a brief representing that he has conducted a professional evaluation of the record and determined that there are no meritorious issues to raise on appeal. Counsel concludes 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, at *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.). In compliance with the procedure in Anders, counsel sent a copy of counsel s brief to 1 The child s initials were corrected to C.R.C. in an amended petition filed by the Department of Family and Protective Services, and the child is referred to as C.R.C. in the judgment, but the style of the case remained In the Interest of C.B.C. 04-12-00586-CV appellant, and informed appellant of her right to file her own brief. See Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 85 86 (Tex. App. San Antonio 1997, no pet.). Appellant has not filed a pro se brief. After reviewing the record from the trial on the merits and counsel s brief, we agree that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court s judgment, and grant counsel s motion to withdraw. Id. Rebeca C. Martinez, 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.