In the Interest of J.L.R., a Child Appeal from 222nd District Court of Deaf Smith County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo No. 07-18-00142-CV IN THE INTEREST OF J.L.R., A CHILD On Appeal from the 222nd District Court Deaf Smith County, Texas Trial Court No. DR-16L-180, Honorable Roland D. Saul, Presiding July 12, 2018 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PARKER, JJ. Appellant D.L., the mother, appeals the termination of her parental rights to her daughter, J.L.R.1 See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 161.001 (West Supp. 2017). The mother’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw supported by an Anders brief. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967); In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 (Tex. 2016) (per curiam). We will affirm the final order of the trial court and take no action on counsel’s motion to withdraw. To protect the child’s privacy, we will refer to the child’s mother as D.L. and “the mother” and to the child as J.L.R. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 109.002(d) (West Supp. 2017); TEX. R. APP. P. 9.8(b). 1 J.L.R. was born November 18, 2016. Final hearing testimony and documentary evidence showed that during her pregnancy with J.L.R. the mother used methamphetamine “at least every other day,” consumed a significant amount of liquor nightly, and smoked tobacco. She admitted using methamphetamine on the day of J.L.R.’s birth. J.L.R. tested positive at birth for amphetamines, methamphetamines and TCH, and experienced “some withdrawal issues.” J.L.R. was removed from the mother in December 2016 and appellee, the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, was appointed temporary managing conservator. Placement was with fictive kin. Under the Department’s family plan of service, the mother was required to perform various services to obtain the return of J.L.R. Although the service plan was made a court order, the mother did not perform the required services. Evidence showed the mother was nineteen when J.L.R. was born, and reported she first used methamphetamine at age eleven. methamphetamine daily at times. There was evidence she used There also was evidence of her convictions for possession of controlled substances in March 2016 and September 2017. The September 2017 conviction resulted from the revocation of her deferred adjudication community supervision imposed in July 2015. Documents from criminal proceedings stated she also had admitted the use of methamphetamine in September 2015, February 2016, and November 2016. Final hearing in the matter of J.L.R. was to the bench in April 2018. The Department requested termination of the mother’s parental rights, leading to adoption of 2 J.L.R.’s attorney ad litem supported the the child by the fictive kin placement.2 Department’s position on termination and the prospective adoption. The court found termination of the mother’s parental rights was in the best interest of J.L.R. and the mother had violated the predicate 161.001(b)(1)(D),(E),(N),(O),(P)&(R). grounds of Family Code subsections TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 161.001(b)(1)(D),(E),(N), (O),(P) & (R) (West Supp. 2017). Counsel’s Anders brief presents a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating there are no arguable grounds for appeal. Anders, 386 U.S. at 744-45. We find counsel’s motion to withdraw and brief meet the requirements of Anders. Counsel also has demonstrated she provided a copy of her brief and the record to the mother and notified her of her right to file a pro se response if she desired. Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). By letter from the clerk, we also notified the mother of her opportunity to respond to counsel’s brief. She did not respond. When presented with a motion to withdraw supported by an Anders brief we are required to independently examine the entire record and decide whether counsel has correctly determined the record does not present an arguable ground for appeal. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); In re A.W.T., 61 S.W.3d 87, 89 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2001, no pet.). We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel’s Anders brief and agree with counsel that the record presents no arguable J.L.R.’s father’s parental rights were terminated in the same proceeding; he has not appealed. 2 3 grounds for appeal. In re K.R.C., 346 S.W.3d 618, 619 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2009, no pet.). The trial court’s order terminating the mother’s parental rights to J.L.R. is affirmed. We take no action on counsel’s motion to withdraw but call counsel’s attention to the continuing duty of representation through the exhaustion of proceedings, which may include the filing of a petition for review. In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d at 27. James T. Campbell Justice 4
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.
