NO. 07-12-00187-CV
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL A
SEPTEMBER 20, 2012
IN THE INTEREST OF T.R.M., A CHILD
FROM THE 223RD DISTRICT COURT OF GRAY COUNTY;
NO. 36,443; HONORABLE JACK GRAHAM, JUDGE
Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, C.L.M. 1, appeals an order of the trial court terminating his parental
rights to T.R.M., his five year old son. C.L.M’s appointed counsel has filed a brief in
conformity with Anders v. California rendering her professional opinion that any issue
that could be raised on appeal is frivolous and without legal merit. See 386 U.S.738, 87
S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). C.L.M.’s counsel avers that she has zealously
reviewed the record in this matter and can find no arguable points of appeal. Counsel
has filed a motion to withdraw and provided C.L.M. with a copy of the brief. Further,
counsel has advised C.L.M. that he has the right to file a pro se response to the Anders
1
To protect the parent’s and child’s privacy, we refer to them by initials. See TEX. FAM.
CODE ANN. § 109.002(d) (West 2012); TEX. R. APP. 9.8(b).
brief. The Court has likewise advised C.L.M. of this right. C.L.M. has not favored the
Court with a response.
This Court has long held that an appointed attorney in a termination case might
discharge his professional duty to his client by filing a brief in conformity with the Anders
process. See In re A.W.T., 61 S.W.3d 87, 88-89 (Tex.App.—Amarillo 2001, no pet.).
Likewise, other intermediate appellate courts have so held. See Sanchez v. Tex. Dep’t
of Family and Protective Servs., No. 03-10-00249-CV, 2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 2162, at
*1, Tex.App.—Austin March 24, 2011, no pet.) (mem. op.); In re L.K.H, No. 11-10-
00080-CV, 2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 1706, at *2-4, Tex.App—Eastland March 10, 2011,
no pet.) (mem. op.); In re D.D., 279 S.W.3d 849, 849-50 (Tex.App.—Dallas 2009, pet.
denied); In re D.E.S., 135 S.W.3d 326, 326-27 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, no
pet.).
We have conducted our own review of the record in this matter and have come to
the conclusion that there are no arguable points of appeal. See In re A.W.T., 61 S.W.3d
at 89. We, therefore, grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. We remind counsel that
C.L.M. has the right to file a pro se petition for review to the Texas Supreme Court.
Finally, having found no arguable points of appeal requiring reversal, we affirm the
judgment of the trial court.
Mackey K. Hancock
Justice
2