Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-14-00305-CV
IN THE INTEREST OF S.O.J.P. and G.M.E., Children
From the 438th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2013-PA-01294
Honorable Charles E. Montemayor, Judge Presiding 1
Opinion by: Marialyn Barnard, Justice
Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice
Marialyn Barnard, Justice
Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
Delivered and Filed: July 23, 2014
MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED; AFFIRMED
Appellant father, J.P., appeals the trial court’s judgment terminating his parental rights to
his children, S.O.J.P. and G.M.E. The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (“the
Department”) moved to have appellant’s parental rights terminated on a variety of grounds. See
TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. §§ 161.001(1)(A)-(I), (K), (M)-(Q); 161.003(a) (West 2014). After a bench
trial, the trial court found appellant’s parental rights should be terminated because he: (1)
constructively abandoned his children; and (2) failed to comply with the provision of a court order
that established the actions necessary for him to obtain the return of his children. See TEX. FAM.
1
The Honorable Gloria Saldaña is the presiding judge of the 438th Civil District Court. However, the order of
termination was signed by Associate Judge Charles Montemayor.
04-14-00305-CV
CODE ANN. §§ 161.001(1)(N), (O). The trial court also determined termination would be in the
best interest of the child. Id. § 161.001(2).
Appellant’s court-appointed appellate attorney has filed a motion to withdraw and a brief
containing a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating there are no arguable grounds to
be advanced and concluding the appeal is frivolous. The brief meets the requirements of Anders
v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). See In re R.R., No. 04-03-00096-CV, 2003 WL 21157944, *4
(Tex. App.—San Antonio May 21, 2003, order) (applying Anders procedure to appeals from orders
terminating parental rights), disp. on merits, 2003 WL 22080522 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Sept.
10, 2003, no pet.) (mem. op.). Appellant’s appointed appellate counsel advised that he sent a copy
of the brief and a letter informing appellant of his right to file his own brief to appellant’s last
known address. See Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 85-86 (Tex. App.—San Antonio July 23,
1997, no pet.); In re R.R., 2003 WL 21157944, at *4. This court attempted to contact appellant at
two different addresses, but all mail has been returned as “undeliverable.” Appellant did not file
a pro se brief.
We have reviewed the record and the attorney’s brief and we agree with counsel that the
appellate points do not present a substantial question for appellate review. Accordingly, we hold
the trial court did not err in terminating appellant’s parental rights. We grant the motion to
withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment. See In re J.D.L., No. 04-11-00055-CV, 2011 WL
3328719, at *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Aug. 3, 2011, no pet.) (mem. op.) (affirming judgment
despite inability to inform appellant of rights pursuant to Anders).
Marialyn Barnard, Justice
-2-