in the Interest of M.S.M., K.C.M., and C.C.M.

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: January 11, 2023
• Docket: 04-22-00512-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-22-00512-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF M.S.M., K.C.M., and C.C.M.

From the 198th Judicial District Court, Bandera County, Texas Trial Court No. CVPC-XX-XXXXXXX Honorable Dennis Powell, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

Sitting: Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Irene Rios, Justice Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

Delivered and Filed: January 11, 2023

AFFIRMED

Mother and Father 1 appeal the trial court’s order terminating their parental rights to their

children. Their court-appointed attorneys have each filed a motion to withdraw and a brief

representing that they have conducted a professional evaluation of the record and have determined

there are no arguable grounds to be raised on appeal. The briefs satisfy 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 procedure applies in parental termination appeals). Both court-

appointed attorneys have also certified that they sent a copy of their briefs and motions to withdraw

to Mother and Father, respectively, and informed Mother and Father of their right to review the

1 To protect the identity of the minor child, we refer to the parties by fictitious names, initials, or aliases. See TEX. FAM. CODE § 109.002(d); TEX. R. APP. P. 9.8(b)(2). 04-22-00512-CV

record and file their own brief. Both court-appointed attorneys also provided Mother and Father,

respectively, 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.). Neither Mother nor Father have filed a pro

se brief.

After reviewing the record and the briefs filed by counsel, we agree that there are no

meritorious issues to be raised and the appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s

order terminating the parental rights of Mother and Father. We deny counsels’ respective motions

to withdraw because they do not assert any ground for withdrawal other than the conclusion that

the appeal is frivolous. See In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d at 27-28 (explaining that appointed counsel’s

duty to a client extends through exhaustion or waiver of all appeals, including the filing of a

petition for review in the Texas Supreme Court).

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

-2-