In the Interest of R.C., Jr., a Child v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: July 31, 2024
• Docket: 07-24-00109-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07-24-00107-CV No. 07-24-00108-CV No. 07-24-00109-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF D.R., N.B., AND R.C., JR., CHILDREN

On Appeal from the 320th District Court Potter County, Texas Trial Court Nos. 096422-D-FM, 097583-D-FM, 096969-D-FM Honorable Carry Baker, Presiding

July 31, 2024 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before QUINN, C.J., and PARKER and YARBROUGH, JJ.

The trial court terminated CR’s parental rights to her children, DR, NB, and RC, Jr.

She appealed from that order. Appointed counsel for mother filed a motion to withdraw,

together with an Anders 1 brief in support thereof. In the latter, counsel certified that he

diligently searched the record and concluded that the appeals are without merit.

Appellate counsel also filed a copy of a letter sent to the last known address of his client

1 Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967). enclosing the Anders brief, the motion to withdraw, and a motion requesting a copy of the

record. He did this after seeking and receiving guidance from the court regarding his

inability to find or otherwise communicate with CR. In the letter, counsel also explained

that she had a right to respond to both the motion to withdraw and Anders brief. By letter

dated July 8, 2024, this Court also sent to mother at her last known address notice of her

right to file her own brief or response by July 29, 2024, if she wished to do so. To date

no response has been received.

In compliance with the principles enunciated in Anders, appellate counsel

discussed several potential areas for appeal, which included the sufficiency of the

evidence to support 1) the statutory grounds found to warrant termination and 2) the best

interest findings of the children. Counsel also addressed whether the trial court erred in

denying the motion for new trial founded upon CR’s failure to appear at trial.

Per our obligation specified in In re D.D., 279 S.W.3d 849, 850 (Tex. App.—Dallas

2009, pet. denied) (citing Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005)),

we reviewed the appellate record in search of arguable issues for appeal. None were

found. So too did we conduct an independent review of the evidence to determine

whether the findings warranting termination under subsections (D) and (E) of

§ 161.001(b)(1) of the Family Code were supported by legally and factually sufficient

evidence. This was done per In re N.G., 577 S.W.3d 230 (Tex. 2019) (per curiam). That

evidence illustrated 1) mother had a considerable history of drug abuse, including the use

of fentanyl and methamphetamine; 2) she maintained, at one point, a filthy home strewn

with clothes, unrefrigerated food, drug paraphernalia, and possible drugs; 3) mother was

reported missing to the Amarillo Police Department in February 2023, some three weeks

2 after she left for Albuquerque with her partner and did not return; 4) she left the children

for over a month with relative strangers who failed to care for and feed them; 5) she had

no job, vehicle, phone or appropriate housing (she lived in a tent in Albuquerque at one

point); 6) she tested positive for methamphetamine and fentanyl during the pendency of

the cases; 7) she failed to remain in contact with the Department; 8) mother’s current

location was unknown; 9) she was arrested in New Mexico in June 2023 for possession

of a controlled substance, reckless driving, and receiving or transferring a stolen motor

vehicle; 10) she visited the children sporadically; and 11) she failed to complete most of

her services required in her service plan. Combined, we find this evidence both legally

and factually sufficient to support termination under subsections (D) and (E).

We agree with counsel’s representation that the appeals are meritless due to the

absence of arguable error and affirm the orders terminating each parent/child relationship

involved. We do not grant the motions to withdraw, however. We call counsel’s attention

to the continuing duty of representation through the exhaustion of proceedings, which

may include the filing of a petition for review for each cause. See In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d

24, 27 (Tex. 2016) (per curiam).

Brian Quinn Chief Justice