in the Interest of E.A.E.S., D.S., A.E.S. and B.M.R., Jr., Children

Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided May 30, 2012·No. 04-12-00049-CV·Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-12-00049-CV

In the Interest of E.A.E.S., D.S., A.E.S. and B.M.R., Jr., Children

From the 37th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2010-PA-01637 Judge Richard H. Garcia, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Steven C. Hilbig, Justice

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice Steven C. Hilbig, Justice

Delivered and Filed: May 30, 2012

MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED; AFFIRMED

S.R.G. 1 appeals the trial court’s order terminating her parent-child relationship with

E.A.E.S., D.S., A.E.S., and B.M.R. Jr. Appellant’s court-appointed appellate attorney filed a

motion to withdraw and a brief containing a professional evaluation of the record, demonstrating

there are no arguable grounds to be advanced, and concluding the appeal is frivolous. The brief

meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). See In re R.R., No. 04-03-

00096-CV, 2003 WL 21157944, *4 (Tex. App.—San Antonio May 21, 2003, order) (applying

Anders procedure to appeals from orders terminating parental rights), disp. on merits, 2003 WL

22080522 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Sept. 10, 2003, no pet.) (mem. op.). Appellant was

1 To protect the identity of the minor child, we refer to appellant and the children by their initials. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 109.002(d) (West 2011); TEX. R. APP. P. 9.8. 04-12-00049-CV

provided a copy of the brief and informed of her right to review the record and file her own brief.

See Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 85-86 (Tex. App.—San Antonio, July 23, 1997, no pet.); In

re R.R., 2003 WL 21157944, at *4. Appellant filed a pro se brief in which argues evidence

outside the record and contends her appointed attorney did not provide effective assistance.

We have reviewed the record, the attorney’s Anders brief, and the pro se brief, and we

agree with counsel that the appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we grant the motion to

withdraw and affirm the trial court’s order.

Steven C. Hilbig, Justice

-2-

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

in the Interest of E.A.E.S., D.S., A.E.S. and B.M.R., Jr., Children, (Tex. Ct. App. 2012).

in the Interest of E.A.E.S., D.S., A.E.S. and B.M.R., Jr., Children (in the Interest of E.A.E.S., D.S., A.E.S. and B.M.R., Jr., Children) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Anders v. California
386 U.S. 738 (Supreme Court, 1967)
Nichols v. State
954 S.W.2d 83 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1997)