In the Interest of S.I., et al., Children Appeal from 37th Judicial District Court of Bexar County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-18-00329-CV IN THE INTEREST OF S.I., H.I., and W.I., Children From the 37th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2017-PA-01391 Honorable Charles E. Montemayor, 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 the children S.I., H.I., and W.I. 1 After a trial to the bench, the court terminated the rights of the children’s parents, including the appellant-father S.I., and designated the Department to be the children’s permanent managing conservator. Appellant’s court-appointed appellate attorney filed a brief in which he concluded there are no non-frivolous issues to be raised on appeal. Counsel certified that he sent appellant a copy of the brief and a letter advising him of his conclusion and of his rights to review the record and to file a pro se brief. Counsel’s letter also provided appellant a form to use to request access to the To protect the identity of the minor children, 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 04-18-00329-CV record and enclosed a copy of counsel’s motion to withdraw, which counsel stated he had filed. Counsel subsequently filed a motion to withdraw in this court. The brief meets the minimum 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 parental rights termination cases and apply in those cases). Appellant did not request access to the appellate record or file 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 In re K.S.L., 538 S.W.3d 107, 112 (Tex. 2017). We therefore affirm the trial court’s order. However, we deny counsel’s motion to withdraw because the motion 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 his 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); In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d at 27. 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.
