J.H., Sr. v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: December 7, 2021
• Docket: 14-21-00352-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed December 7, 2021.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-21-00352-CV

J.H. SR., Appellant

V. DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND PROTECTIVE SERVICES, Appellee

On Appeal from the 314th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2018-04975J

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant J.H. Sr. appeals the trial court’s final order in this suit affecting the parent-child relationship signed June 7, 2021. Appellee Department of Family and Protective Services initially sought termination of appellant’s parental rights regarding the child J.B.H., who is a subject of this suit, but the trial court named appellant possessory conservator of J.B.H. and ordered appellant to pay child support. Appellant appeals the trial court’s order restricting his parental rights. Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 109.002(a). Appellant’s appointed counsel filed a brief in which he concludes the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), presenting a professional evaluation of the record 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 restriction of parental rights when an appointed attorney concludes there are no nonfrivolous issues to assert on appeal. In re D.E.S., 135 S.W.3d 326, 329 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, no pet.).

Appellant’s counsel certified that he notified appellant of the right to file a pro se response to the Anders brief.1 See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); In re D.E.S., 135 S.W.3d at 329–30. No pro se response has been filed.

We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel’s brief and agree the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. Further, we find no fundamental or reversible error in the record. A discussion of the brief would add nothing to the jurisprudence of the state.

Accordingly, the trial court’s final order is affirmed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Jewell, Spain, and Wilson.

1 This court also attempted to provide appellant with notice, but a mailing to the address on record was returned with the notation “Vacant.” This court then ordered appellant’s counsel to confirm that appellant had received notice. Appellant’s counsel filed a signed certificate of proof stating that he had contacted appellant by phone on November 5, 2021, informed him of the Anders filings, and sent appellant a copy of the filings by email, certified mail, and regular mail on that date.