In the Interest of Z.B.W.H., Z.W., D.W., D.W., and M.W., ChildrenAppeal from 72nd District Court of Lubbock County (memorandum opinion )

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo No. 07-13-00398-CV IN THE INTEREST OF Z.B.W., Z.W., D.L., D.L., AND M.L., A/K/A M.W., CHILDREN On Appeal from the 72nd District Court Lubbock County, Texas Trial Court No. 2010-553,710, Honorable Ruben Gonzales Reyes, Presiding March 25, 2014 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ. Appellant, Trisha,1 appeals an order of the trial court terminating her parental rights to Z.B.W., Z.W., D.L., D.L., and M.L, a/k/a M.W., her five children. Trisha s appointed counsel has filed a brief in conformity with Anders v. California rendering her professional opinion that any issue that could be raised on appeal is frivolous and without legal merit. See 386 U.S.738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Trisha s counsel avers that she has zealously reviewed the record in this matter and can find no 1 Throughout this opinion, appellant will be referred to as "Trisha," and the children will be identified by their initials. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 109.002(d) (West Supp. 2013); TEX. R. APP. P. 9.8(b). arguable points of appeal. Counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and provided Trisha with a copy of the brief. Further, counsel has advised Trisha that she has the right to file a pro se response to the Anders brief. The Court has likewise advised Trisha of this right. Trisha has not favored the Court with a response. This Court has long held that an appointed attorney in a termination case might discharge his professional duty to his client by filing a brief in conformity with the Anders process. See In re A.W.T., 61 S.W.3d 87, 88-89 (Tex. App. Amarillo 2001, no pet.). Likewise, other intermediate appellate courts have so held. See Sanchez v. Tex. Dep t of Family and Protective Servs., No. 03-10-00249-CV, 2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 2162, at *1 (Tex. App. Austin March 24, 2011, no pet.) (mem. op.); In re L.K.H, No. 11-1000080-CV, 2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 1706, at *2-4 (Tex. App Eastland March 10, 2011, no pet.) (mem. op.); In re D.D., 279 S.W.3d 849, 849-50 (Tex. App. Dallas 2009, pet. denied); In re D.E.S., 135 S.W.3d 326, 326-27 (Tex. App. Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, no pet.). We have conducted our own review of the record in this matter and have come to the conclusion that there are no arguable points of appeal. See In re A.W.T., 61 S.W.3d at 89. We, therefore, grant counsel s motion to withdraw. We remind counsel that Trisha has the right to file a pro se petition for review at the Texas Supreme Court. Finally, having found no arguable points of appeal requiring reversal, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. Mackey K. Hancock 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.