In the Interest of T.J.T., a Child v. the State of Texas
This text of In the Interest of T.J.T., a Child v. the State of Texas (In the Interest of T.J.T., a Child v. the State of Texas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio) primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-25-00667-CV
IN THE INTEREST OF T.J.T., a Child
From the 150th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2020-PA-00560 Honorable Raul Perales, Judge Presiding
Opinion by: Adrian A. Spears II, Justice
Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice Adrian A. Spears II, Justice
Delivered and Filed: January 21, 2026
AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED, MOTION TO WITHDRAW DENIED
T.T. 1 appeals the trial court’s second judgment terminating his parental rights to his child,
T.J.T. 2
On June 9, 2025, the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services filed an original
petition to modify a prior order and to terminate T.T.’s parental rights to T.J.T. On September 23,
2025, the trial court held a bench trial. At the end of the trial, the trial court found that T.T. had
1 To protect the identity of the minor child, we refer to the appellant and the child by their initials. See TEX. FAM. CODE § 109.002(d); TEX. R. APP. P. 9.8(b)(2). 2 We reversed the trial court’s first judgment terminating T.T.’s parental rights to T.J.T. on August 17, 2022. See In re M.D.A.V. and T.J.T., Children, No. 04-22-00131-CV, 2022 WL 3372416, at *12 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Aug. 17, 2022, no pet.). Since then, T.J.T. has been in foster care and the Department has remained his managing conservator. 04-25-00667-CV
constructively abandoned T.J.T. and that termination of T.T.’s parental rights was in T.J.T.’s best
interest. 3 See TEX. FAM. CODE § 161.001(b)(1)(N),(2). The trial court signed a judgment
terminating T.T.’s parental rights. T.T. timely appealed.
On appeal, T.T.’s court-appointed appellate counsel filed a brief and a motion to withdraw
pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). See In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 n.10
(Tex. 2016) (approving use of Anders procedures in appeal from judgment terminating parental
rights). Counsel’s brief contains a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrates there is
no reversible error on which to predicate an appeal. In the brief, counsel concludes that this appeal
is frivolous and without merit. In compliance with the procedure set out in Anders, counsel has
shown that he sent a letter to T.T., which explained T.T.’s right to review the record and file a pro
se brief. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 320 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Additionally, in the letter
to T.T., counsel stated that he had enclosed copies of the brief and the motion to withdraw. See id.
at 319.
This court then set a deadline for T.T. to file a pro se brief. However, T.T. did not request
access to the record or file a pro se brief.
We have reviewed counsel’s Anders brief and conducted an independent review of the
record. We conclude the record contains no reversible error and this appeal is without merit.
Nevertheless, our review of the record did reveal a typographical error in the judgment. One letter
in T.T.’s first name is incorrect. When all the information necessary to correct a typographical or
clerical error in the judgment is before us, we have the authority to modify the judgment so that it
speaks the truth. See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(b); Silva v. State, 989 S.W.2d 64, 66 (Tex. App.—San
3 The trial court also found that T.T. used a controlled substance in a manner that endangered the health or safety of the child. See TEX. FAM. CODE § 161.001(b)(1)(O). However, only one statutory ground is necessary to affirm a termination judgment under section 161.001(b) when there is also a finding that termination is in the child’s best interest. In re A.V., 113 S.W.3d 355, 362 (Tex. 2003).
-2- 04-25-00667-CV
Antonio 1998, pet. ref’d); see also Barboza v. State, No. 07-17-00023-CR, 2018 WL 1916013, at
*3 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Apr. 23, 2018, pet. ref’d) (not designated for publication) (reforming
judgment in Anders appeal). Therefore, we modify the trial court’s termination judgment to
properly reflect T.T.’s first name. As modified, we affirm the judgment terminating T.T.’s parental
rights.
In conjunction with his Anders brief, counsel filed a motion to withdraw, which we deny
because it does not assert any ground for withdrawal apart from counsel’s conclusion that the
appeal is frivolous. See In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d at 27; In re A.M., 495 S.W.3d 573, 582 (Tex.
App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2016, pet. denied). Counsel’s duty to his client extends through the
exhaustion or waiver of all appeals, including the filing of a petition for review in the Texas
Supreme Court. See TEX. FAM. CODE § 107.016(2)(B); In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d at 27. After our
opinion is handed down, counsel’s obligations to his client may be satisfied by filing a petition for
review that satisfies the standards for an Anders brief. See In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d at 27-28 & n.14.
Adrian A. Spears II, Justice
-3-
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 T.J.T., a Child v. the State of Texas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-interest-of-tjt-a-child-v-the-state-of-texas-txctapp4-2026.