in the Interest of J.A.M., J.R.M., J.P.M. J.A.M., Children

Opinion

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-22-00499-CV

In the INTEREST OF J.A.M., J.R.M., J.P.M., and J.A.M., Children

From the 365th Judicial District Court, Maverick County, Texas Trial Court No. 21-03-39707-MCVAJA Honorable Amado J. Abascal III, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Irene Rios, Justice

Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice Irene Rios, Justice Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

Delivered and Filed: December 28, 2022

AFFIRMED

Mother A.G. 1 appeals the trial court’s order, wherein Mother’s sister, Y.F., was appointed

sole managing conservator of Mother’s children, J.A.M., J.R.M., J.P.M., and J.A.M., and Mother

was appointed possessory conservator of her children with court-ordered possession. Mother’s

parental rights were not terminated.

Mother’s court-appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw and a brief representing that

she conducted a professional evaluation of the record and determined there are no arguable grounds

to be raised on appeal. 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 Anders

1 To protect the identity of the minor children, we refer to the parties by fictitious names, initials, or aliases. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 109.002(d); TEX. R. APP. P. 9.8(b)(2). 04-22-00499-CV

procedure applies in parental termination appeals). Counsel also certified that she sent a copy of

the brief and the motion to withdraw to Mother, informed her of the right to review the record and

file her own brief, and provided Mother with a form motion to request access to the record. See

Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re A.L.H., No. 04-18-00153-

CV, 2018 WL 3861695, at *2 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Aug. 15, 2018, no pet.). Mother submitted

a pro se brief.

After reviewing the record, counsel’s brief, and Mother’s pro se brief, we agree that there

are no meritorious issues to be raised and the appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we affirm the trial

court’s order. We deny counsel’s motion to withdraw because she does not assert any ground for

withdrawal other than her conclusion that the appeal is frivolous. In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d at 27–28

(holding counsel’s obligations in parental termination cases extend through the exhaustion or

waiver of all appeals, including the filing of a petition for review in the Texas Supreme Court).

Irene Rios, Justice

-2-