in the Interest of H.D., M.D. and C.F., Children

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: July 17, 2015
• Docket: 07-15-00178-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07-15-00178-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF H.D., M.D. AND C.F., CHILDREN

On Appeal from the 108th District Court Potter County, Texas Trial Court No. 84,815-E, Honorable Douglas Woodburn, Presiding

July 16, 2015

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.

Lesley F. appeals the termination of her parental rights to her three young

children H.D., M.D., and C.F. Her appointed counsel 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. Appellate counsel, through a

letter dated June 9, 2015, informed Lesley of his motion to withdraw, the filing of an

Ander’s brief, and her right to file a response. Counsel further represented in the letter

that he provided his client the record for purposes of reviewing and compiling a

response, if she cared to. By letter, this court also informed Lesley of her right to tender

1 Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). her own response and set July 8, 2015 as the deadline to do so. To date, no response

has been received; nor has the court received a request from appellant, or anyone else,

that the deadline be extended.

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 as a basis for termination. He then explained why the evidence is

sufficient to support those findings.2 Although counsel did not specifically discuss the

evidence to support the finding that termination is in the best interest of the children, we

have conducted our own review of the record to uncover reversible error and have

found none.3

Accordingly, the motion to withdraw is granted, and the judgment is affirmed.

Brian Quinn Chief Justice

2 The children were removed from the home in November 2013 because their mother, who was allegedly under the influence of narcotics, failed to pick up the two older children from day care and police discovered the youngest child, who was two-years-old, at home in a dirty condition and running naked in and out of the house. Although there was evidence at the final hearing that Lesley had performed part of her service plan and has been drug free since July 2014, she did not successfully complete the prerequisites to obtaining the return of her children. The record also contained evidence illustrating that she lacked stable employment and a stable and safe environment for the children. 3 All three children are in foster care together, they are bonded to their foster family, the behavior of the oldest child has improved since he has been in foster care, and the foster parents are interested in adopting the children.