In the Interest of S.G., a child Appeal from 225th Judicial District Court of Bexar County (memorandum opinion )
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-14-00419-CV IN THE INTEREST OF S.G., a Child From the 225th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2013-PA-02259 Honorable Richard Garcia, Judge Presiding Opinion by: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Sitting: Marialyn Barnard, Justice Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Delivered and Filed: November 5, 2014 AFFIRMED Appellant J.R. appeals the trial court’s order terminating her parental rights to her child S.G. The trial court determined Appellant constructively abandoned her child, failed to comply with her court-ordered service plan, and used a controlled substance in a manner that endangered her child. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 161.001(1)(N), (O), (P) (West 2014). The court also determined that terminating Appellant’s parental rights was in the child’s best interest. 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. 04-14-00419-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 R.R., No. 04–03–00096–CV, 2003 WL 21157944, at *4 (Tex. App.—San Antonio May 21, 2003, no pet.). Counsel provided Appellant with a copy of the Anders brief. Counsel also informed Appellant of her right to file a pro se brief and provided her a pro se motion to request a free copy of the appellate record. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319– 20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). The motion contained the correct style, appeal number, and address for this court. See id. To receive a free copy of the record, Appellant had to do no more than sign, date, and mail the motion. See id. at 320. Appellant did not file either the motion for a free copy of the record or a pro se brief. See id. at 321. 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.
