in the Interest of G.W.R., J.J.P. and M.L.P., Children
This text of in the Interest of G.W.R., J.J.P. and M.L.P., Children (in the Interest of G.W.R., J.J.P. and M.L.P., Children) 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
In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
No. 07-16-00116-CV
IN THE INTEREST OF G.W.R., J.J.P., AND M.L.P., CHILDREN
On Appeal from the 223rd Judicial District Court Gray County, Texas Trial Court No. 38,006, Honorable Jack M. Graham, Presiding
May 17, 2016
MEMORANDUM OPINION Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.
Appellant, W.P., had her parental rights to G.W.R., J.J.P., and M.L.P. terminated
and has appealed from that order. Her appointed counsel has filed a motion to
withdraw, together with an Anders1 brief wherein he certified that, after diligently
searching the record, he has concluded that the appeal is without merit. Along with his
brief, appellate counsel filed a copy of a letter sent to W.P., on April 14, 2016, informing
her of her right to file a response pro se. In that letter, counsel represented that he had
provided a paper copy of the appellate record to W.P. This court also informed W.P. by
1 Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). letter dated April 20, 2016 of her right to file a response and set the deadline to do so at
May 10, 2016. To date, we have not received a response.
In compliance with the principles enunciated in Anders, appellate counsel
discussed the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence to support the trial court’s
statutory findings under the Texas Family Code § 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E) and (O) as a
basis for termination and the finding that termination is in the best interests of the
children. We also have conducted our own review of the record to uncover any
reversible error and have found none. We agree that the appeal is frivolous and without
merit.
Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. We deny counsel’s motion to withdraw.
See In re P.M., No. 15-0171, 2016 Tex. LEXIS 236, at *7-8 (Tex. April 1, 2016) (per
curiam) (holding that 1) the right to appointed counsel under § 107.013(a)(1) of the
Family Code includes the exhaustion of appellate remedies through the Texas Supreme
Court, 2) counsel’s belief that his client has no grounds to seek further review is not
alone good cause to permit counsel’s withdrawal, and 3) appointed counsel’s
obligations can be satisfied by filing a petition for review with the Supreme Court
comporting with Anders).
Brian Quinn Chief Justice
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 G.W.R., J.J.P. and M.L.P., Children, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-interest-of-gwr-jjp-and-mlp-children-texapp-2016.