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

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedFebruary 6, 2019
Docket04-18-00647-CV
StatusPublished

This text of in the Interest of J.D.H. and D.M.D.C., Children (in the Interest of J.D.H. and D.M.D.C., 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 J.D.H. and D.M.D.C., Children, (Tex. Ct. App. 2019).

Opinion

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-18-00647-CV

In the Interest of J.D.H. and D.M.D.C., Children

From the 150th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2017PA01776 Honorable Richard Garcia, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Irene Rios, Justice

Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Irene Rios, Justice

Delivered and Filed: February 6, 2019

AFFIRMED

This is an appeal from the trial court’s order terminating appellant’s parental rights to her

two children, J.D.H. and D.M.D.C. Appellant’s court-appointed appellate attorney filed a brief

containing a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating there are no arguable grounds

to be advanced. Counsel concluded the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief met the

requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); see In re R.R., No. 04–03–00096–CV,

2003 WL 21157944, at *4 (Tex. App.—San Antonio May 21, 2003, no pet.) (applying Anders

procedure in appeal from termination of parental rights). 1 Counsel provided appellant with a copy

of the brief. Appellant was informed of her right to review the record and advised of her right to

1 The brief in this case was filed prior to this court’s opinion in In re N.F.M., No. 04-18-00475-CV, 2018 WL 6624409, at *2-4 (Tex. App.—San Antonio December 19, 2018) (denying motion for en banc reconsideration of order striking Anders brief). 04-18-00247-CV

file a pro se brief. The State waived its right to file an appellee’s brief unless appellant filed a pro

se brief. Appellant has not filed a brief. After reviewing the record and counsel’s brief, we agree

the appeal is frivolous and without merit. Therefore, the trial court’s termination order is affirmed.

Irene Rios, Justice

-2-

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

Related

Anders v. California
386 U.S. 738 (Supreme Court, 1967)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
in the Interest of J.D.H. and D.M.D.C., Children, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-interest-of-jdh-and-dmdc-children-texapp-2019.