in the Interest of A.L.T. A/K/A A.T., Child v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services

Court of Appeals of Texas

in the Interest of A.L.T. A/K/A A.T., Child v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services

DecidedJanuary 5, 2023

Docket14-22-00533-CV

StatusPublished

This text of in the Interest of A.L.T. A/K/A A.T., Child v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (in the Interest of A.L.T. A/K/A A.T., Child v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

in the Interest of A.L.T. A/K/A A.T., Child v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, (Tex. Ct. App. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed January 5, 2023.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-22-00533-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF A.L.T. A/K/A A.T., CHILD

On Appeal from the 315th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2018-04475JA

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This is an appeal from a final decree terminating the parental rights of T.T. (mother) and K.M. (father) to A.L.T. a/k/a A.T., child. Both T.T. and K.M filed notices of appeal, and the trial court appointed each of them an attorney to prosecute their respective appeals.

Each of the court-appointed appellate attorneys has filed a brief meeting the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 811-13 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). The Anders procedures apply to an appeal from the termination of parental rights when an appointed attorney concludes there are no non-frivolous issues to assert on appeal. In re D.E.S., 135 S.W.3d 326, 329 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, no pet.).

Both appellants were notified of their right to file a pro se response to their lawyer’s Anders brief. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); In re D.E.S., 135 S.W.3d at 329-30. T.T. filed a letter in response. K.M. did not file a response. The Department of Family and Protective Services has waived its right to respond.

We have carefully reviewed the record, counsels’ briefs, and T.T.’s response, and we agree with counsel that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. We find no reversible error in the record. A discussion of the briefs and response would add nothing to the jurisprudence of the state.

We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Christopher and Justices Bourliot and Wilson.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed January 5, 2023.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-22-00533-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF A.L.T. A/K/A A.T., CHILD

On Appeal from the 315th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2018-04475JA

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This is an appeal from a final decree terminating the parental rights of T.T. (mother) and K.M. (father) to A.L.T. a/k/a A.T., child. Both T.T. and K.M filed notices of appeal, and the trial court appointed each of them an attorney to prosecute their respective appeals.

Each of the court-appointed appellate attorneys has filed a brief meeting the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 811-13 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). The Anders procedures apply to an appeal from the termination of parental rights when an appointed attorney concludes there are no non-frivolous issues to assert on appeal. In re D.E.S., 135 S.W.3d 326, 329 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, no pet.).

Both appellants were notified of their right to file a pro se response to their lawyer’s Anders brief. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); In re D.E.S., 135 S.W.3d at 329-30. T.T. filed a letter in response. K.M. did not file a response. The Department of Family and Protective Services has waived its right to respond.

We have carefully reviewed the record, counsels’ briefs, and T.T.’s response, and we agree with counsel that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. We find no reversible error in the record. A discussion of the briefs and response would add nothing to the jurisprudence of the state.

We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Christopher and Justices Bourliot and Wilson.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

in the Interest of A.L.T. A/K/A A.T., Child v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-interest-of-alt-aka-at-child-v-texas-department-of-family-texapp-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack