In the Interest of A.H., A.W., and A.L.W., Children Appeal from 408th Judicial District Court of Bexar County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-20-00566-CV IN THE INTEREST OF A.H., A.W., and A.L.W., Children From the 285th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2019-PA-02438 Honorable Linda A. Rodriguez, Judge Presiding Opinion by: Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice Delivered and Filed: April 7, 2021 AFFIRMED; MOTION TO WITHDRAW DENIED Mother J.W. 1 appeals the trial court’s order terminating her parental rights to her children A.W. and A.L.W. 2 Mother’s court-appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw and a brief representing that she 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 she sent a copy of the brief and the motion to withdraw to Mother, informed her of the right To protect the identity of the minor children, we refer to the parties by fictitious names, initials, or aliases. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 109.002(d); TEX. R. APP. P. 9.8(b)(2). 1 A.H. turned 18 years old during the pendency of the case and the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services was dismissed as her managing conservator. 2 04-20-00566-CV to review the record and file her own brief, and provided Mother 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 Mother to request the record and file a pro se brief. Mother 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 she does not assert any ground for withdrawal other than her 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.
