In the Interest of A.M., B.M., and E.M., Children Appeal from 166th Judicial District Court of Bexar County (memorandum opinion )
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-14-00317-CV IN THE INTEREST OF A.M., B.M., and E.M., Children From the 166th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2013-PA-00328 Honorable Charles E. Montemayor, Judge Presiding Opinion by: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Sitting: Marialyn Barnard, Justice Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Delivered and Filed: September 17, 2014 AFFIRMED Appellant Henry M. appeals the trial court s termination of his parental rights to his children A.M., B.M., and E.M. The trial court determined Appellant constructively abandoned his children and failed to comply with his court-ordered service plan. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 161.001(1)(N), (O) (West 2014). The court also determined that terminating Appellant s parental rights was in the children s best interests. See id. § 161.001(2). Appellant s court-appointed attorney filed a brief containing a professional evaluation of the record. In the brief, counsel asserts he diligently reviewed the record but could not find any point of error upon which a non-frivolous appeal might be based. Based on his review, counsel concludes the record supports the trial court s order. 04-14-00317-CV Counsel s brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). See In re D.D., 279 S.W.3d 849, 850 (Tex. App. Dallas 2009, pet. denied) (applying Anders procedure in an appeal from termination of parental rights); In re D.E.S., 135 S.W.3d 326, 329 (Tex. App. Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, no pet.); In re RR, No. 04 03 00096 CV, 2003 WL 21157944, at *4 (Tex. App. San Antonio May 21, 2003, no pet.) (mem. op.). Counsel provided Appellant with a copy of the Anders brief and informed him of his right to review the record and file a pro se brief. Appellant has not filed a pro se brief. After reviewing the record, we agree the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The trial court s order is affirmed; counsel s motion to withdraw is granted. See Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 85 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.). Patricia O. Alvarez, 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.
