in the Interest of I.M. and R.P., Children

Court of Appeals of Texas

in the Interest of I.M. and R.P., Children

DecidedAugust 13, 2020

Docket11-20-00063-CV

StatusPublished

This text of in the Interest of I.M. and R.P., Children (in the Interest of I.M. and R.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.

Bluebook

in the Interest of I.M. and R.P., Children, (Tex. Ct. App. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion filed August 13, 2020

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals __________

No. 11-20-00063-CV __________

IN THE INTEREST OF I.M. AND R.P., CHILDREN

On Appeal from the 326th District Court Taylor County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 9428-CX

MEMORAND UM OPI NI ON This is an appeal from a final order in which the trial court terminated the parental rights of the parents of I.M. and R.P. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 161.001 (West Supp. 2019). The mother filed a notice of appeal. We affirm. Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a brief in which he professionally and conscientiously examines the record and applicable law and concludes that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406–08 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Appellant’s counsel provided Appellant with a copy of the brief. Appellant was informed of her right to review the record and file a pro se response to counsel’s brief. In compliance with Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 318–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014), counsel provided Appellant with a copy of the complete appellate record. We conclude that Appellant’s counsel has satisfied his duties under Anders, Schulman, and Kelly. Appellant has not filed a pro se response to counsel’s Anders brief. Following the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman, we have independently reviewed the record in this cause, and we agree that the appeal is frivolous. We note that counsel has not filed a motion to withdraw in this court, which may have been premature if it had been filed in this court, and that “appointed counsel’s obligations can be satisfied by filing a petition for review that satisfies the standards for an Anders brief.” In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27–28 (Tex. 2016). We affirm the trial court’s order of termination.

PER CURIAM

August 13, 2020 Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J., Stretcher, J., and Wright, S.C.J.1 Willson, J., not participating.

1 Jim R. Wright, Senior Chief Justice (Retired), Court of Appeals, 11th District of Texas at Eastland, sitting by assignment. 2

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

Opinion filed August 13, 2020

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals __________

No. 11-20-00063-CV __________

IN THE INTEREST OF I.M. AND R.P., CHILDREN

On Appeal from the 326th District Court Taylor County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 9428-CX

MEMORAND UM OPI NI ON This is an appeal from a final order in which the trial court terminated the parental rights of the parents of I.M. and R.P. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 161.001 (West Supp. 2019). The mother filed a notice of appeal. We affirm. Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a brief in which he professionally and conscientiously examines the record and applicable law and concludes that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406–08 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Appellant’s counsel provided Appellant with a copy of the brief. Appellant was informed of her right to review the record and file a pro se response to counsel’s brief. In compliance with Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 318–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014), counsel provided Appellant with a copy of the complete appellate record. We conclude that Appellant’s counsel has satisfied his duties under Anders, Schulman, and Kelly. Appellant has not filed a pro se response to counsel’s Anders brief. Following the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman, we have independently reviewed the record in this cause, and we agree that the appeal is frivolous. We note that counsel has not filed a motion to withdraw in this court, which may have been premature if it had been filed in this court, and that “appointed counsel’s obligations can be satisfied by filing a petition for review that satisfies the standards for an Anders brief.” In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27–28 (Tex. 2016). We affirm the trial court’s order of termination.

PER CURIAM

August 13, 2020 Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J., Stretcher, J., and Wright, S.C.J.1 Willson, J., not participating.

1 Jim R. Wright, Senior Chief Justice (Retired), Court of Appeals, 11th District of Texas at Eastland, sitting by assignment. 2

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

in the Interest of I.M. and R.P., Children, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-interest-of-im-and-rp-children-texapp-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack