In re LMDJ, et al. 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. 04-20-00086-CV In the Interest of L.M.D.J., M.R.A.H., M.L.D.H., M.C.E.H., R.R.A.H., Minor Children From the 285th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2019PA00216 Honorable Martha Tanner, Judge Presiding Opinion by: Irene Rios, Justice Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice Irene Rios, Justice Beth Watkins, Justice Delivered and Filed: July 8, 2020 AFFIRMED, MOTION TO WITHDRAW DENIED This is an appeal from a judgment terminating appellant’s parental rights to her children, L.M.D.J., M.R.A.H., M.L.D.H., M.C.E.H., and R.R.A.H. Appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and a brief discussing the applicable law and evaluating the entire record in this case. Counsel identifies and analyzes two potential appellate issues, but ultimately concludes no non-frivolous grounds can be advanced in support of reversal of the trial court’s judgment. Counsel’s brief satisfies the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). See In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 (Tex. 2016) (noting Anders procedures apply in parental termination cases); In re R.R., No. 04-03-00096-CV, 2003 WL 21157944, at *4 (Tex. App.—San Antonio May 21, 2003, no pet.) (same). Counsel provided appellant a copy of his brief and advised her of her right to review the record and file a pro se brief. We set deadlines for appellant to request 04-20-00086-CV the record and file a pro se brief and advised her of these deadlines. Appellant did not request the record or file a pro se brief. After conducting an independent review of the entire record in this case, we conclude this appeal is frivolous. Therefore, we affirm the trial court’s termination judgment. However, we deny counsel’s motion to withdraw. See In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d at 27 (noting that in parental termination cases court-appointed counsel’s duty to his client generally extends “through the exhaustion of all appeals” “including the filing of a petition for review” in the Texas Supreme Court). If appellant desires to pursue this matter in the Texas Supreme Court, counsel may fulfill his duty “by filing a petition for review that satisfies the standards for an Anders brief.” See id. at 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.
