T. T. v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services
This text of T. T. v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (T. T. v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services) 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.
Opinion
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-14-00659-CV
T. T., Appellant
v.
Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 250TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. D-1-FM-13-001803, HONORABLE AMY CLARK MEACHUM, JUDGE PRESIDING
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant T.T. appeals from the trial court’s order terminating his parental rights to
his son, T.T. See Tex. Fam. Code §§ 161.001(1)(E), .001(2), .007(a).1 Appellant’s court-appointed
counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and an Anders brief, concluding that the appeal is frivolous
and without merit. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967); see also Taylor v. Texas
Dep’t of Protective & Regulatory Servs., 160 S.W.3d 641, 646-47 (Tex. App.—Austin 2005,
pet. denied) (applying Anders procedure in appeal from termination of parental rights). The brief meets
the requirements of Anders by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating
why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Taylor, 160 S.W.3d
at 646-47. Appellant was provided with a copy of counsel’s brief and was advised of his right to
examine the appellate record and to file a pro se brief. No pro se brief has been filed.
1 Although the termination order also terminated the parental rights of the child’s mother, she is not a party to this appeal. The parties are familiar with the facts, procedural history, and applicable standards
of review. Accordingly, we will not recite them here. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4. We have reviewed
the record and counsel’s brief and agree that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. We find
nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80
(1988); Anders, 386 U.S. at 741-44; Taylor, 160 S.W.3d at 646-47. We affirm the trial court’s order
of termination and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw as attorney of record.
_____________________________________________
David Puryear, Justice
Before Chief Justice Rose, Justices Puryear and Goodwin
Affirmed
Filed: March 18, 2015
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
T. T. v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/t-t-v-texas-department-of-family-and-protective-se-texapp-2015.