In the Interest of A.M.O., a Child Appeal from 285th Judicial District Court of Bexar County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-18-00301-CV IN THE INTEREST OF A.M.O., a Child From the 285th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2017PA01432 Honorable Richard Garcia, Judge Presiding Opinion by: Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Sitting: Marialyn Barnard, Justice Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Delivered and Filed: October 17, 2018 MOTION TO WITHDRAW DENIED; AFFIRMED The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services filed this suit, seeking to terminate the rights of the parents of A.M.O. 1 After a trial to the bench, the court terminated the rights of the child’s parents and designated the Department to be the child’s permanent managing conservator. J.A.O., the child’s father, timely appealed the trial court’s order. Appellant’s court-appointed appellate attorney filed a brief in which she concluded there are no non-frivolous issues to be raised on appeal. The brief minimally meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). See In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 n.10 (Tex. 2016) (stating that Anders procedures protect indigent parents’ statutory right to counsel on appeal in To protect the identity of the minor child, we refer to the parties by their initials. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 109.002(d) (West Supp. 2017); TEX. R. APP. P. 9.8. 1 04-18-00301-CV parental rights termination cases and apply in those cases). Counsel advised that she sent a copy of the brief and a letter advising appellant of his rights to review the record and file a pro se brief to appellant’s last known address. This court set a deadline to file the pro se brief and attempted to contact appellant, but the mail has been returned as “undeliverable.” See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 408 n. 21 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (“A defendant who fails to keep his attorney informed of his current address forfeits the right to receive a copy of the Anders brief and the right to file a pro se brief.”). Appellant has not filed a pro se brief. We have thoroughly reviewed the record and the attorney’s Anders brief, and we agree with counsel that the appeal is without merit. See Interest of K.S.L., 538 S.W.3d 107, 112 (Tex. 2017). Therefore, we affirm the trial court’s termination order. See In re J.D.L., No. 04-11-00055CV, 2011 WL 3328719, at *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio, Aug. 3, 2011, no pet.) (mem. op.) (affirming termination order despite inability to inform appellant of rights pursuant to Anders). Counsel filed a motion to withdraw in conjunction with her Anders brief. We deny the motion to withdraw because it does not assert any ground for withdrawal apart from counsel’s conclusion that the appeal is frivolous. See In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d at 27; In re A.M., 495 S.W.3d 573, 583 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2016, pet. denied). Counsel’s duty to her client extends through the exhaustion or waiver of all appeals, including the filing of a petition for review in the Texas Supreme Court. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 107.016(2) (West 2014); In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d at 27-28 & n.14. Luz Elena D. Chapa, 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.
