In the Interest of S.O.J.P., Et al., ChildrenAppeal from 438th Judicial District Court of Bexar County (memorandum opinion )
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-14-00305-CV IN THE INTEREST OF S.O.J.P. and G.M.E., Children From the 438th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2013-PA-01294 Honorable Charles E. Montemayor, Judge Presiding 1 Opinion by: Marialyn Barnard, Justice Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice Marialyn Barnard, Justice Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Delivered and Filed: July 23, 2014 MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED; AFFIRMED Appellant father, J.P., appeals the trial court s judgment terminating his parental rights to his children, S.O.J.P. and G.M.E. 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)-(I), (K), (M)-(Q); 161.003(a) (West 2014). After a bench trial, the trial court found appellant s parental rights should be terminated because he: (1) constructively abandoned his children; and (2) failed to comply with the provision of a court order that established the actions necessary for him to obtain the return of his children. See TEX. FAM. 1 The Honorable Gloria Saldaña is the presiding judge of the 438th Civil District Court. However, the order of termination was signed by Associate Judge Charles Montemayor. 04-14-00305-CV CODE ANN. §§ 161.001(1)(N), (O). The trial court also determined termination would be in the best interest of the child. Id. § 161.001(2). 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 s appointed appellate counsel advised that he sent a copy of the brief and a letter informing appellant of his right to file his own brief to appellant s last known address. 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. This court attempted to contact appellant at two different addresses, but all mail has been returned as undeliverable. 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. See In re J.D.L., No. 04-11-00055-CV, 2011 WL 3328719, at *1 (Tex. App. San Antonio Aug. 3, 2011, no pet.) (mem. op.) (affirming judgment despite inability to inform appellant of rights pursuant to Anders). 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.
