MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-12-00369-CV
IN THE INTEREST OF L.M.H., a Child
From the 45th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2010-PA-02099
Honorable Charles E. Montemayor, Judge Presiding 1
Opinion by: Marialyn Barnard, Justice
Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice
Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice
Marialyn Barnard, Justice
Delivered and Filed: October 3, 2012
MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED; AFFIRMED
Appellant father, J.P., appeals the trial court’s judgment terminating his parental rights to
L.M.H. 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)-(F), (H), (M)-(Q) (West Supp. 2012). After a bench trial, the trial court found
appellant’s parental rights should be terminated because he: (1) constructively abandoned
L.M.H., and (2) failed to comply with the provision of a court order that established the actions
necessary for him to obtain the return of L.M.H. See id. §§ 161.001(1)(N), (O). The trial court
also determined termination would be in the best interest of the child. See id. § 161.001(2).
1
The Honorable Barbara Nellermoe is the presiding judge of the 45th Judicial District Court of Bexar County,
Texas. The order of termination was signed by Associate Judge Charles E. Montemayor.
04-12-00369-CV
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 was provided a copy of the brief and
informed of his right to file his own brief. 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. 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.
Marialyn Barnard, Justice
-2-