In the Interest of N.F.M. and S.R.M. Appeal from 57th Judicial District Court of Bexar County (memorandum opinion)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-18-00475-CV IN THE INTEREST OF N.F.M. and S.R.M., Children From the 57th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2017PA00070 Honorable John D. Gabriel Jr., Judge Presiding 1 Opinion by: Beth Watkins, Justice Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice Beth Watkins, Justice Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice Delivered and Filed: March 6, 2019 MOTION TO WITHDRAW DENIED; AFFIRMED Appellant mother (“Mother”) appeals the trial court’s order terminating her parental rights to her children, N.F.M. and S.R.M. Mother’s court-appointed appellate counsel filed a motion to withdraw and a brief containing a professional evaluation of the record, concluding there are no arguable grounds for reversal of the termination order. The brief minimally satisfies 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) (recognizing that Anders procedures apply in parental termination cases). Additionally, counsel represents that he provided Mother with a copy of the brief and the motion to withdraw, advised Mother of her right to review the record and file her own brief, and informed The Honorable Antonia Arteaga is the presiding judge of the 57th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas. However, the Honorable John D. Gabriel, retired and sitting by assignment, signed the order of termination that is the subject of this appeal. 1 04-18-00475-CV Mother how to obtain a copy of the record, providing her with a form motion for access to the appellate record. We issued an order setting deadlines for Mother to request the appellate record and file a pro se brief. However, Mother neither requested the appellate record nor filed a pro se brief. After reviewing the appellate record and appointed counsel’s brief, we conclude no plausible grounds exist for reversal of the termination order. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s termination order. Because appointed counsel has not asserted any ground for withdrawal other than his conclusion that the appeal is frivolous, we deny the motion to withdraw. See id. at 27–28 (holding that counsel’s obligations in parental termination cases extend through exhaustion or waiver of all appeals, including filing petition for review in Texas Supreme Court). Beth Watkins, Justice -2-