in the Interest of M.D., A.D., A.D., R.D., Children

Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided May 9, 2012·No. 04-11-00904-CV·Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-11-00904-CV

In the INTEREST OF M.D., A.D., A.D., R.D., M.D., Children

From the 285th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2011-PA-00352 Honorable Charles E. Montemayor, Associate Judge Presiding 1

Opinion by: Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice Rebecca Simmons, Justice Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Delivered and Filed: May 9, 2012

MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED; AFFIRMED

Appellant mother, N.D., appeals the trial court’s judgment terminating her parental rights

to M.D., A.D., A.D., R.D., and M.D. Appellant’s court-appointed appellate attorney has filed a

motion to withdraw and a brief containing a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating

there are no arguable grounds to be advanced and concluding the appeal is frivolous. The brief

meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). See In re R.R., No. 04-03-

00096-CV, 2003 WL 21157944, *4 (Tex. App.—San Antonio May 21, 2003, order) (applying

Anders procedure to appeals from orders terminating parental rights), disp. on merits, 2003 WL

22080522 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Sept. 10, 2003, no pet.) (mem. op.). Appellant was

1 The Honorable Richard Price is the presiding judge of the 285th Judicial District Court. However, the order of termination was signed by the Honorable Charles E. Montemayor, Associate Judge. 04-11-00904-CV

provided a copy of the brief and informed of her right to file her own brief. See Nichols v. State,

954 S.W.2d 83, 85-86 (Tex. App.—San Antonio July 23, 1997, no pet.); In re R.R., 2003 WL

21157944, at *4. Appellant did not file a pro se brief.

We have reviewed the record and the attorney’s brief and we agree with counsel that the

appellate points do not present a substantial question for appellate review. See TEX. CIV. PRAC.

& REM. CODE ANN. § 13.003(b) (West 2002); TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 263.405(d)(3)

(incorporating section 13.003(b) by reference). Accordingly, we hold the trial court did not

abuse its discretion in finding the points of appeal to be frivolous. We grant the motion to

withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

-2-

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

in the Interest of M.D., A.D., A.D., R.D., Children, (Tex. Ct. App. 2012).

in the Interest of M.D., A.D., A.D., R.D., Children (in the Interest of M.D., A.D., A.D., R.D., Children) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Anders v. California
386 U.S. 738 (Supreme Court, 1967)
Nichols v. State
954 S.W.2d 83 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1997)