In the Interest of E.S., a Child v. the State of Texas
This text of In the Interest of E.S., a Child v. the State of Texas (In the Interest of E.S., a Child v. the State of Texas) 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.
Opinion
Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-23-01103-CV
IN THE INTEREST OF E.S., a Child
From the 224th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2023PA00055 Honorable Kimberly Burley, Judge Presiding
Opinion by: Beth Watkins, Justice
Sitting: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Beth Watkins, Justice
Delivered and Filed: May 29, 2024
AFFIRMED; MOTION TO WITHDRAW DENIED
Appellant A.S. appeals the trial court’s order terminating her parental rights to her child
E.S. Her court-appointed appellate counsel filed a motion to withdraw and a brief containing a
professional evaluation of the record, concluding there are no arguable grounds for reversal of the
termination order. The brief satisfies the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967). See In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 n.10 (Tex. 2016) (per curiam) (recognizing that Anders
procedures apply in parental termination cases). Additionally, counsel represents that she provided
A.S. with a copy of the brief and the motion to withdraw, advised A.S. of her right to review the
record and file her own brief, and informed A.S. how to obtain a copy of the record, providing her
with a form motion for access to the appellate record. We issued an order setting a deadline for
A.S. to file a pro se brief. However, A.S. did not request the appellate record or file a pro se brief. 04-23-01103-CV
After reviewing the appellate record and appointed counsel’s brief, we conclude no
plausible grounds exist for reversal of the termination order. Accordingly, we affirm the trial
court’s termination order. We deny counsel’s motion to withdraw because it does not show good
cause for withdrawal. See id. at 27 & n.7 (holding that counsel’s obligations in a parental
termination case extend through exhaustion or waiver of all appeals and that withdrawal should be
permitted by a court of appeals “only for good cause”).
Beth Watkins, 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 Interest of E.S., a Child v. the State of Texas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-interest-of-es-a-child-v-the-state-of-texas-texapp-2024.