In the Guardianship of Allison Singleton, an Incapacitated Person v. .
This text of In the Guardianship of Allison Singleton, an Incapacitated Person v. . (In the Guardianship of Allison Singleton, an Incapacitated Person v. .) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio) primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-24-00760-CV
IN THE GUARDIANSHIP OF Allison SINGLETON, an Incapacitated Person
From the Probate Court No. 2, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2024-PC2-01625 Honorable Veronica Vasquez, Judge Presiding
Opinion by: Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice
Sitting: Irene Rios, Justice Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice H. Todd McCray, Justice
Delivered and Filed: May 6, 2026
AFFIRMED; MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED
On October 4, 2024, a Bexar County jury found that appellant Allison Singleton was
incapacitated; that supports and services available to avoid a guardianship were not feasible; that
it was in Singleton’s best interest for a guardian to be appointed and that her rights and property
would be protected by the appointment of a guardian; and that the Bexar County Guardianship
Program and attorney Dawn Laubach were qualified to act as guardians of Singleton’s person and
estate. Additionally, based on stipulations from the parties, the trial court found on the record that
alternatives to a guardianship that would avoid the need for a guardianship were not feasible. On
October 14, 2024, the trial court signed a judgment consistent with the jury’s verdict and its
findings on the record. By separate orders, it appointed the Bexar County Guardianship Program 04-24-00760-CV
and Laubach to act as guardians of Singleton’s person and estate. Singleton timely filed a notice
of appeal.
On appeal, Singleton’s court-appointed attorney ad litem, who also represented her at trial,
filed a brief in which he concludes this appeal is frivolous and without merit, and requests to
withdraw as counsel. The brief demonstrates a professional and thorough evaluation of the record
and meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); see also In re
Guardianship of Hahn, 276 S.W.3d 515, 516–17 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2008, no pet.)
(applying Anders-style procedures to appeal from an order declaring an individual incapacitated
and appointing a guardian). Singleton filed a pro se brief, her guardian ad litem filed an appellee’s
brief, and both Singleton and the guardian ad litem filed reply briefs.
We have thoroughly reviewed the record and the briefing in this appeal. We find no
arguable grounds for appeal exist and have decided the appeal is wholly frivolous. See In re
Guardianship of Hahn, 276 S.W.3d at 518. We therefore grant appointed counsel’s motion to
withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment. See id.
Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice
-2-
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
In the Guardianship of Allison Singleton, an Incapacitated Person v. ., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-guardianship-of-allison-singleton-an-incapacitated-person-v-txctapp4-2026.