Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-14-00488-CV
IN THE INTEREST OF T.F., a Child
From the 288th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2011-PA-02356
Honorable David A. Canales, Judge Presiding
Opinion by: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice
Marialyn Barnard, Justice
Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
Delivered and Filed: February 18, 2015
AFFIRMED
Appellants B.J. and T.A. appeal the trial court’s termination of their respective parental
rights to their child T.F. The trial court found by clear and convincing evidence that B.J. and T.A.
each “engaged in conduct or knowingly placed the child with persons who engaged in conduct
which endangers the physical or emotional well-being of the child,” and each failed to comply
with their respective court-ordered service plan. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 161.001(1)(E), (O)
(West 2014). The court also found by clear and convincing evidence that terminating Appellants’
parental rights was in T.F.’s best interest. See id. § 161.001(2).
Appellants’ court-appointed attorneys filed briefs containing professional evaluations of
the record. In each brief, counsel asserts he diligently reviewed the record but could not find “any
04-14-00488-CV
point of error upon which a non-frivolous appeal might be based.” Based on their respective
reviews, each counsel concludes the record supports the trial court’s order.
Counsels’ briefs meet the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967).
See In re D.D., 279 S.W.3d 849, 850 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2009, pet. denied) (applying Anders
procedure in an appeal from termination of parental rights); In re D.E.S., 135 S.W.3d 326, 329
(Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, no pet.); In re RR, No. 04–03–00096–CV, 2003 WL
21157944, at *4 (Tex. App.—San Antonio May 21, 2003, no pet.) (mem. op.). Each counsel
provided their client with a copy of the Anders brief and informed him or her of their right to
review the record and file a pro se brief. Neither appellant requested a copy of the record nor filed
a pro se brief. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).
After reviewing the record, we agree the appeals are frivolous and without merit. The trial
court’s order is affirmed; counsels’ motions to withdraw are granted. See Nichols v. State, 954
S.W.2d 83, 85–86 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no pet.); Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177
n.1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, no pet.).
Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
-2-
in the Interest of T.F., a Child
Combined Opinion