in the Interest of N.F., D.F., J.F., and M.F., Children
This text of in the Interest of N.F., D.F., J.F., and M.F., Children (in the Interest of N.F., D.F., J.F., and M.F., 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.
Opinion
In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo ________________________
No. 07-12-0486-CV ________________________
In the Interest of N.F., D.F., J.F., and M.F., Children
On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2 Lubbock County, Texas Trial Court No. 2003-522,865, Honorable Kevin Hart, Presiding
May 7, 2013
MEMORANDUM OPINION Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.
Appellant Donald Fierro had his parental rights to N.F., D.F., J.F. and M.F.
terminated and has appealed from that order. Appellant’s appointed counsel has filed a
motion to withdraw, together with an Anders brief wherein she certified that, after
diligently searching the record, she has concluded that the appeal is without merit.
Appellant filed a response to the Anders brief wherein he contended that 1) he was
unable to access the record on the DVD mailed to him by his attorney, 2) trial counsel
was ineffective and 3) the trial court erred in terminating his rights because the evidence was insufficient to support termination. We then directed appellant’s attorney to provide
him with a paper record and extended his time to file a response to April 29, 2013. To
date, no other response has been filed. Nor has appellant sought any additional time to
respond.
In compliance with the principles enunciated in Anders, appellate counsel
discussed one potential area for appeal which included the sufficiency of the evidence
to support termination under the statutory ground (E) as alleged in the termination
petition. However, counsel then proceeded to explain how the evidence was sufficient
to support this ground and explained how only one sufficient ground supported
termination.
In addition, we conducted our own review of the record to assess the accuracy of
appellate counsel’s conclusions and to uncover any arguable error pursuant to Stafford
v. State, 813 S.W.2d 508 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Upon conducting that review, we
determined that appellant 1) had notice of the grounds proffered for terminating his
parental rights, 2) appeared at the hearing by teleconference, and 3) through counsel,
had the opportunity to defend against the accusations, present evidence and cross-
examine witnesses. Furthermore, the evidence presented at trial legally and factually
supported at least one of the grounds for termination. See In re P.E.W., 105 S.W.3d
771, 777 (Tex. App.–Amarillo 2003, no pet.) (holding that though the trial court found
several statutory grounds warranting termination of the parent/child relationship, we
need not determine whether each enjoys the requisite amount of evidentiary support.
Instead, the decision may be affirmed if the evidence supports the existence of one
ground and that termination is in the best interest of the child). The record also contains
2 evidence upon which the trial court could clearly and convincingly find that termination
of appellant’s parental rights was in the best interest of the child.
Accordingly, having found no arguable merit to the appeal, we affirm the order for
termination and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
Brian Quinn Chief Justice
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 N.F., D.F., J.F., and M.F., Children, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-interest-of-nf-df-jf-and-mf-children-texapp-2013.