In the Interest of R.C.H., a Child 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. 04-18-00453-CV In the Interest of R.C.H., a Child From the 37th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2017PA02163 Honorable Charles E. Montemayor, Judge Presiding Opinion by: Karen Angelini, Justice Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Delivered and Filed: October 10, 2018 AFFIRMED, MOTION TO WITHDRAW DENIED Appellant H.H. appeals the trial court’s order terminating his parental rights to his child, R.C.H. Appellant’s court-appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw and a brief containing a professional evaluation of the record and concluding there are no arguable grounds for reversal of the termination order. The brief satisfies the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). See re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 n.10 (Tex. 2016) (recognizing that Anders procedures apply in parental termination cases). Additionally, counsel represents that he provided appellant with a copy of the brief and the motion, advised appellant of his right to review the record and file his own brief, and informed appellant how to obtain a copy of the record. We issued an order setting deadlines for appellant to request the record and file a pro se brief. The clerk of this court mailed copies of the order to appellant’s last known address on two occasions, but the orders were 04-18-00453-CV returned with the designation “not deliverable as addressed.” Appellant did not request the record or file a pro se brief. After reviewing the record and counsel’s brief, we conclude no plausible grounds exist for reversal of the termination order. Therefore, we affirm the trial court’s termination order. However, because counsel does not assert any ground for withdrawal other than his conclusion that the appeal is frivolous, we deny counsel’s motion to withdraw. See id. at 27–28 (holding that counsel’s obligations in parental termination cases extend through the exhaustion or waiver of all appeals, including the filing of a petition for review in the Texas Supreme Court). Karen Angelini, 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.
