In the Interest of S.N.M., L.A.M., and B.C.M. Appeal from 224th Judicial District Court of Bexar County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-18-00612-CV IN THE INTEREST OF S.N.M., L.A.M. Jr., and B.C.M., Children From the 224th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2017-PA-02540 Honorable Charles Montemayor, Associate Judge Presiding Opinion by: Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Delivered and Filed: December 19, 2018 MOTION TO WITHDRAW DENIED; AFFIRMED The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services filed this suit, seeking termination of the parent-child relationship between appellant and her children. After a bench trial, the trial court signed a judgment terminating appellant’s parental rights, finding appellant had knowingly endangered and constructively abandoned her children, and that she failed to comply with court-ordered provisions of her family service plan. The trial court also found that termination of appellant’s parental rights is in the children’s best interest. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal, and she was appointed counsel for her appeal. Appellant’s court-appointed appellate attorney has filed a brief concluding there are no non-frivolous issues to be raised on appeal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 n.10 (Tex. 2016) (stating that Anders procedures protect indigent parents’ 04-18-00612-CV statutory right to counsel on appeal in parental rights termination cases and apply in those cases). Counsel certified appellant was sent a copy of the brief and a letter advising her of her rights to review the record and to file a pro se brief. Counsel also provided appellant a form to use to request access to the record. In addition, counsel filed a motion to withdraw. This court issued an order setting deadlines to request access to the record and to file a pro se brief and holding the motion to withdraw in abatement. Appellant did not file a pro se brief. We have thoroughly reviewed the record and the attorney’s Anders brief. The record establishes by clear and convincing evidence the sole grounds for termination and that termination is in the children’s best interest. See TEX. FAM. CODE § 161.001; In re J.O.A., 283 S.W.3d 336, 344-45 (Tex. 2009); In re A.V., 113 S.W.3d 355, 362 (Tex. 2003). Upon a thorough review of the record, we conclude the evidence is legally and factually sufficient to support the termination order and there are no other arguably meritorious grounds for appeal. In re K.S.L., 538 S.W.3d 107, 111 (Tex. 2017) (holding evidence that affidavit of relinquishment will generally be sufficient to support a termination order). Therefore, we affirm the trial court’s termination order. Counsel has also filed a motion to withdraw in conjunction with his Anders brief. We deny counsel’s 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 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 § 107.016(3); 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.
