In the Interest of S.W., a Child Appeal from 100th District Court of Carson County (memorandum opinion by chief justice quinn)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo No. 07-16-00267-CV IN THE INTEREST OF S.W., A CHILD On Appeal from the 100th District Court Carson County, Texas Trial Court No. 11,508, Honorable Stuart Messer, Presiding September 1, 2016 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ. H.W. had her parental rights to S.W. terminated and appealed from that order. Her appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw, together with an Anders1 brief. In the latter, counsel certified that the record was diligently searched and that the appeal was without merit. Appellate counsel also attached a copy of a letter sent to H.W. informing her of her right to file a pro se response. H.W. was also provided a copy of the appellate record, according to counsel. By letter dated August 9, 2016, this court also notified H.W. of her right to file her own brief or response by August 29, 2016, if she wished to do so. To date no response has been received. 1 Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). In compliance with the principles enunciated in Anders, appellate counsel discussed potential areas for appeal which included the sufficiency of the evidence to support the statutory grounds found for termination and whether termination was in the best interests of the children. Counsel then explained that the termination was supported by sufficient evidence. Per our obligation specified in In re D.D., 279 S.W.3d 849, 850 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2009, pet. denied) (citing Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005)), we too reviewed the appellate record in search of arguable issues for appeal. None were found. Thus, we concur with counsel’s representation that the appeal is meritless due to the absence of reversible error. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. We deny counsel’s motion to withdraw. See In re P.M., __ S.W.3d __, 2016 Tex. App. LEXIS 236, at *7-8 (Tex. 2016) (per curiam) (holding that 1) the right to appointed counsel under § 107.013(a)(1) of the Family Code includes the exhaustion of appellate remedies through the Texas Supreme Court, 2) counsel’s belief that his client has no grounds to seek further review is not alone good cause to permit counsel’s withdrawal, and 3) appointed counsel’s obligations can be satisfied by filing a petition for review with the Supreme Court comporting with Anders). Brian Quinn Chief 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.
