In the Interest of J.T.H. Appeal from 131st Judicial District Court of Bexar County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-19-00515-CV In the Interest of J.T.H. From the 131st Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2018-PA-01512 Honorable Charles E. Montemayor, Judge Presiding Opinion by: Irene Rios, Justice Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice Irene Rios, Justice Delivered and Filed: December 18, 2019 AFFIRMED; MOTION TO WITHDRAW DENIED This is an appeal from a judgment terminating appellant’s parental rights to his child, J.T.H. Appellant’s court-appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw and a brief. In the brief, counsel discusses the applicable law and examines the record in this case. After examining the record, counsel concludes this appeal is frivolous and without merit. Counsel’s brief satisfies the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). See In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 n.10 (Tex. 2016) (noting Anders procedures apply in parental termination cases). Counsel’s motion to withdraw states that appellant was provided a copy of the Anders brief and advised of his right to request the record and file a pro se brief. We issued an order notifying appellant that he had the right to request the record and file a pro se brief. Appellant did not request the record or file a pro se brief. 04-19-00515-CV After conducting an independent evaluation of the record, we agree this appeal is frivolous and without merit. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. Nevertheless, we deny counsel’s motion to withdraw because it fails to demonstrate good cause for counsel to withdraw. See id. at 27 & n.7 (providing that once counsel is appointed in a parental termination case he “should be permitted to withdraw only for good cause . . . .”). Counsel’s obligation to his client extends through the exhaustion or waiver of all appeals. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 107.016(3)(B); In re P.M. 520 S.W.3d at 27. If appellant desires to pursue this appeal to the Texas Supreme Court, counsel may satisfy his obligation “by filing a petition for review that satisfies the standards for an Anders brief.” See In re P.M. 520 S.W.3d at 27-28 & n.14. Irene Rios, 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.
