in the Interest of R.M.C. and R.M.C., Children

395 S.W.3d 820, 2013 WL 364244, 2013 Tex. App. LEXIS 919
CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedJanuary 31, 2013
Docket11-12-00307-CV
StatusPublished
Cited by15 cases

This text of 395 S.W.3d 820 (in the Interest of R.M.C. and R.M.C., 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.

Bluebook
in the Interest of R.M.C. and R.M.C., Children, 395 S.W.3d 820, 2013 WL 364244, 2013 Tex. App. LEXIS 919 (Tex. Ct. App. 2013).

Opinion

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (the Department) instituted the underlying action seeking to terminate M.C.’s parental rights to her children, R.M.C. and R.M.C. At the conclusion of a bench trial, the trial court granted the requested termination of M.C.’s parental rights. M.C. appeals from this determination. We dismiss the appeal.

M.C.’s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and a supporting brief wherein she professionally and conscientiously examines the record and applicable law and states that she has concluded that the appeal is frivolous. Counsel has provided M.C. with a copy of the motion to withdraw and brief and advised M.C. of her right to review the record and file a response to counsel’s brief. A response has not been filed. 1 Court-appointed counsel has complied with the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967) and In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex.Crim.App.2008). In this regard, the practice recognized in Anders for court-appointed counsel to seek a withdrawal from a frivolous appeal applies to parental termination proceedings involving appointed counsel. See In re K.D., 127 S.W.3d 66, 67 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, no pet.).

Following the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman, we have independently re-viewed the record, and we agree *821 that the appeal is without merit and should be dismissed. Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409. Court-appointed counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted. Additionally, we order counsel to notify M.C. of the disposition of this appeal and the availability of discretionary review to the Texas Supreme Court. Counsel is directed to send M.C. a copy of the opinion and judgment within five days after the opinion is handed down, along with notification of her right to file a pro se petition for review under Tex.R.App. P. 53. Likewise, this court advises M.C. that she may file a petition for review pursuant to Tex.R,App. P. 53.

The motion to withdraw is granted, and the appeal is dismissed.

1

. By letter, this court granted M.C. over forty-five days in which to exercise her right to file a response to counsel's motion to withdraw and brief.

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

Related

in the Interest of J. S. and M. S., Children
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2019
in the Interest of C v. a Child
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2018
in the Interest of A.D. and B.D., Children
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2015
in the Interest of J.R.I., a Child
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2015
in the Interest of R.E.L., a Child
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2015
in the Interest of J.M.R., a Child
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2015
in the Interest of J.A.F., a Child
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2015
in the Interest of J.H. and D.H., Children
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2015
in the Interest of J.R., a Child
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2015
in the Interest of R.N.T.N., a Child
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2015

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
395 S.W.3d 820, 2013 WL 364244, 2013 Tex. App. LEXIS 919, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-interest-of-rmc-and-rmc-children-texapp-2013.