In the Interest of I.A.A., 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. 04-18-00915-CV IN THE INTEREST OF I.A.A., a Child From the 285th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2018PA00196 Honorable Charles E. Montemayor, Judge Presiding Opinion by: Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice Delivered and Filed: March 20, 2019 MOTION TO WITHDRAW DENIED; AFFIRMED The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services filed this suit, seeking to terminate the parental rights of I.A.A.’s parents. 1 After a bench trial, the court terminated the rights of both parents and designated the Department as the children’s permanent managing conservator. R.R., I.A.A.’s mother, timely appealed the trial court’s order. The trial court found termination of R.R.’s parental rights is in I.A.A.’s best interest. The court also found four independent grounds to terminate her rights: (1) she engaged in conduct that endangered the child; (2) she constructively abandoned the child; (3) she used controlled substances and failed to completely address the issue; and (4) she was the cause of the child being To protect the identity of the minor child, we refer to the parties by their initials. See TEX. FAM. CODE § 109.002(d); TEX. R. APP. P. 9.8. 1 04-18-00915-CV born addicted to an illegally obtained controlled substance. See TEX. FAM. CODE § 161.001(b)(1)(E), (N), (P), and (R). R.R.’s court-appointed appellate attorney filed a brief in which he concluded 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) (per curiam) (stating that Anders procedures protect indigent parents’ statutory right to counsel on appeal in parental rights termination cases and apply in those cases). Counsel certified he sent R.R. 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 R.R. a form to use to request access to the record. In addition, counsel filed a motion to withdraw and sent a copy of the motion to R.R. Appellant did not request access to the appellate record, and this court set a deadline for appellant to file a pro se brief. Appellant has not filed a pro se brief, and the State has waived its right to file a brief. We have thoroughly reviewed the record and the attorney’s Anders brief. The record establishes by clear and convincing evidence at least one of the grounds for termination and that termination is in I.A.A.’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. Therefore, we affirm the trial court’s termination order. Counsel 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 -2- 04-18-00915-CV 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. “Once appointed by the trial court, counsel should be permitted to withdraw only for good cause and on appropriate terms and conditions. Mere dissatisfaction of counsel or client with each other is not good cause. Nor is counsel’s belief that the client has no grounds to seek further review from the court of appeals’ decision. . . . In [the Texas Supreme Court], appointed counsel’s obligations can be satisfied by filing a petition for review that satisfies the standards for an Anders brief.” In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d at 27-28 & n.14 (footnotes omitted). Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice -3-