In the Interest of J.D.V., S.E.H.E., R.G.E., and H.R.E., Jr. Appeal from 100th District Court of Donley County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo No. 07-18-00279-CV IN THE INTEREST OF J.D.V., S.E.H.E., R.G.E., AND H.R.E., JR., CHILDREN On Appeal from the 100th District Court Donley County, Texas Trial Court No. DTX-17-07376, Honorable Stuart Messer, Presiding September 18, 2018 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PARKER, JJ. L.E. had her parental rights to J.D.V., S.E.H.E., R.G.E, and H.R.E., Jr. 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 L.E. informing her of her right to file a pro se response. L.E. was also provided a copy of the appellate record, according to counsel. By letter dated August 28, 2018, this court also notified L.E. of her right to file her own brief or 1Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967). response by September 17, 2018, if she wished to do so. To date no response has been received. 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. L.E. had executed an affidavit of relinquishment of her parental rights. Counsel, on appeal, explained that no evidence existed to show that the affidavit was procured by fraud, duress or coercion, and there was sufficient evidence to support a finding that termination was in the best interests of the children. 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.2 Brian Quinn Chief Justice We 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. Counsel has filed a motion to withdraw, on which we will take no action. In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 (Tex. 2016) (per curiam). 2 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.
