in the Interest of Z.Z.A-S., a Child

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedFebruary 21, 2019
Docket14-18-00839-CV
StatusPublished

This text of in the Interest of Z.Z.A-S., a Child (in the Interest of Z.Z.A-S., a Child) 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 Z.Z.A-S., a Child, (Tex. Ct. App. 2019).

Opinion

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed February 21, 2019.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-18-00839-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF Z.Z.A-S., A CHILD

On Appeal from the 315th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2017-00529J

NO. 14-18-00840-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF Z.A.A.-S-T. AKA Z.T., A CHILD

On Appeal from the 315th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2017-04990J

MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant S.C. appeals the final orders terminating the parent-child relationship between her and her sons, Z.Z.A-S. and Z.A.A.-S.T. aka Z.T, respectively. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 109.002(a-1). Appellant’s appointed counsel filed a brief in which he concludes the appeals are frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 811–13 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). The Anders procedures apply to an appeal from the termination of parental rights when an appointed attorney concludes there are no non-frivolous issues to assert on appeal. In re D.E.S., 135 S.W.3d 326, 329 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, no pet.).

A copy of counsel’s brief was delivered to appellant. Appellant was advised of her right to inspect the appellate records and file a pro se response to the brief. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 512 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). As of this date, more than 60 days have passed and no pro se response has been filed.

We have carefully reviewed the records and counsel’s brief and agree the appeals are frivolous and without merit. Further, we find no reversible error in the records. A discussion of the appellate brief would add nothing to the jurisprudence of the state. D.E.S., 135 S.W.3d at 330.

Accordingly, the trial court’s final orders terminating the parent-child relationship are affirmed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Wise, Zimmerer, and Spain.

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

Related

Anders v. California
386 U.S. 738 (Supreme Court, 1967)
Stafford v. State
813 S.W.2d 503 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1991)
High v. State
573 S.W.2d 807 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1978)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
in the Interest of Z.Z.A-S., a Child, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-interest-of-zza-s-a-child-texapp-2019.