In the Interest of D.L. III, D.L., D.A.R. and D.G. Appeal from 225th Judicial District Court of Bexar County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-19-00274-CV IN THE INTEREST OF D.L., III, D.L., D.A.R. and D.G., Children From the 225th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2018PA00708 Honorable Norma Gonzales, Judge Presiding Opinion by: Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice Sitting: Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Irene Rios, Justice Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice Delivered and Filed: October 23, 2019 AFFIRMED; MOTION TO WITHDRAW DENIED This is an appeal from the trial court’s order terminating appellant L.T.’s parental rights to her children, D.L., III, D.L. 1, D.A.R., and D.G. Appellant’s court-appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw and a brief representing that he conducted a professional evaluation of the record and determined there are no arguable grounds to be raised on appeal. The brief 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) (per curiam) (recognizing Anders procedure applies in parental termination appeals). Counsel also certified that he sent a copy of the brief and the motion to withdraw to appellant, informed appellant of her right to review the record and file her own brief, and provided The Anders brief mistakenly refers to this child as A.L. The final order of termination and the rest of the record identify the child as D.L. 1 04-19-00274-CV appellant with a form motion to request access to the record. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re A.L.H., No. 04-18-00153-CV, 2018 WL 3861695, at *2 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Aug. 15, 2018, no pet.). This court issued an order setting the deadlines for appellant to request the record and file a pro se brief. Appellant did not request the record or submit a pro se brief. After reviewing the record and counsel’s brief, we agree that there are no meritorious issues to be raised and the appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s order. We deny counsel’s motion to withdraw because he does not assert any ground for withdrawal other than his conclusion that the appeal is frivolous. In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d at 27-28 (holding 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). Liza A. Rodriguez, 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.
