In the Interest of M.A.W., A.V.W., and L.R.W., Children v. .
This text of In the Interest of M.A.W., A.V.W., and L.R.W., Children v. . (In the Interest of M.A.W., A.V.W., and L.R.W., Children v. .) 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
Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-23-00564-CV
IN THE INTEREST OF M.A.W., A.V.W., and L.R.W., Children
From the 285th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2022-PA-00951 Honorable Raul Perales, Judge Presiding
Opinion by: Beth Watkins, Justice
Sitting: Irene Rios, Justice Beth Watkins, Justice Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice
Delivered and Filed: August 30, 2023
AFFIRMED; MOTION TO WITHDRAW DENIED
Appellant M.N.W. appeals the trial court’s order terminating his parental rights to his
children M.A.W., A.V.W., and L.R.W. His court-appointed appellate counsel filed a motion to
withdraw and a brief containing a professional evaluation of the record, concluding there are no
arguable grounds for reversal of the termination order. 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 that Anders procedures apply in parental termination cases).
Additionally, counsel represents that he provided M.N.W. with a copy of the brief and the motion
to withdraw, advised M.N.W. of his right to review the record and file his own brief, and informed
M.N.W. how to obtain a copy of the record, providing him with a form motion for access to the 04-23-00564-CV
appellate record. We issued an order setting a deadline for M.N.W. to file a pro se brief. However,
M.N.W. did not request the appellate record or file a pro se brief.
After reviewing the appellate record and appointed counsel’s brief, we conclude no
plausible grounds exist for reversal of the termination order. Accordingly, we affirm the trial
court’s termination order. We deny counsel’s motion to withdraw because it does not show good
cause for withdrawal. See id. at 27 & n.7 (holding that counsel’s obligations in a parental
termination case extend through exhaustion or waiver of all appeals and that withdrawal should be
permitted by a court of appeals “only for good cause” (citing TEX. R. CIV. P. 10)).
Beth Watkins, Justice
-2-
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 M.A.W., A.V.W., and L.R.W., Children v. ., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-interest-of-maw-avw-and-lrw-children-v-texapp-2023.