TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-14-00508-CV
A. L., Appellant
v.
Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 126TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NO. D-1-FM-13-000534, HONORABLE TIM SULAK, JUDGE PRESIDING
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This is an appeal from a final decree, following a bench trial, terminating the parental
rights of a mother, A.L., to her two-year-old daughter, K.L. A.L.’s court-appointed counsel has filed
a motion to withdraw and an Anders brief, concluding that the appeal is frivolous and without merit.1
Counsel’s brief meets the requirements of Anders by presenting a professional evaluation of the
record and demonstrating that there are no arguable grounds for appeal.2 A.L. was provided with
a copy of counsel’s brief and was advised of her right to examine the appellate record and to file a
pro se brief. No pro se brief has been filed.
1
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).
2
See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Taylor, 160 S.W.3d at 646-47.
At the termination hearing, the district court heard evidence tending to show that A.L.
had tested positive for marihuana and PCP at the time K.L. was born. Carmen Bolich, a caseworker
for the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (the Department), testified that A.L. had
initially agreed to enter the Travis County drug-court program but subsequently decided that she
no longer wanted to participate, at which time the Department obtained temporary custody of K.L.
Bolich explained that the Department then gave A.L. a family-service plan, which included
protective parenting classes, basic parenting classes, therapy sessions, a psychological evaluation,
a drug and alcohol assessment, and anger-management classes. When asked if A.L. had complied
with any of these requirements, Bolich testified, “Not until recently. The only thing that she
completed, which, I believe, was maybe a month or two ago, was a psychological.” Bolich added
that A.L. had not completed any of the recommendations contained within the psychological
evaluation. Bolich also testified that A.L. had infrequently attended scheduled visits with K.L. and
had last visited the child “over a year ago.” Additionally, Bolich claimed, A.L. had maintained
“very minimal contact” with the Department throughout the case, “maybe once a month at the most.”
Also, according to Bolich, A.L. had provided the Department with no indication that she would
be able to provide a safe and stable home for K.L. Bolich testified that the Department was
recommending termination of A.L.’s parental rights based on her failure to comply with court-
ordered services and what the Department considered to be constructive abandonment of the child.
Bolich further testified that K.L. currently resides in a foster home and that the
current foster placement is willing to adopt the child. Bolich opined that she believed it was in the
child’s best interest to stay in her current placement. She explained, “I believe [K.L.]’s very bonded
2
with her foster family and that they’ve taken great care of [K.L.] and they have met all of her needs.
So I believe it would be in her best interest for [K.L.] to stay where she’s at.” Bolich added that
K.L. had special medical needs and that the child’s foster mother had done a “great job” of meeting
those needs.
Charron Sumler, a supervisor at Court-Appointed Special Advocates (CASA) of
Travis County, similarly testified that CASA was recommending termination of A.L.’s parental
rights and that termination was in the best interest of the child. When asked to explain why CASA
was recommending termination, Sumler explained, “[K.L.]’s been in the foster home for the majority
of her life, and they’re able to meet her needs, as mentioned, has some serious health concerns and
other concerns from her birth. She had some in-utero drug exposure and some needs that need to
be taken care of. And her foster home has done a really, really good job and has bonded with her.”
Following Sumler’s testimony, the Department rested its case. A.L. did not testify
or personally appear at the hearing, although she was represented by counsel.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the district court granted the Department’s requested
relief and terminated A.L.’s parental rights. As specified in its termination decree, the district court
found by clear and convincing evidence that termination was in the best interest of the child and that
A.L had: (1) constructively abandoned the child and (2) failed to comply with the provisions of a
court order that specifically established the actions necessary for the parent to obtain the return of
the child.3 This appeal followed.
3
See Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001(1)(N), (O), (2).
3
Having reviewed the record and counsel’s brief, we agree that the appeal is frivolous.
We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal.4 We affirm the district court’s
termination decree and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
__________________________________________
Bob Pemberton, Justice
Before Justices Puryear, Pemberton, and Field
Affirmed
Filed: January 29, 2015
4
See Anders, 386 U.S. at 741-44; Taylor, 160 S.W.3d at 646-47.
4