MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-12-00138-CV
IN THE INTEREST OF N.D., A Child
From the 438th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2011-PA-00407
Honorable Charles E. Montemayor, Judge Presiding 1
Opinion by: Marialyn Barnard, Justice
Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice
Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice
Marialyn Barnard, Justice
Delivered and Filed: July 18, 2012
MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED; AFFIRMED
Appellant father, S.D., appeals the trial court’s judgment terminating his parental rights to
N.D. 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)-(K), (M)-(Q), (S); 161.003(a) (West 2008 & Supp. 2010). After a bench trial,
the trial court found appellant’s parental rights should be terminated because he: (1)
constructively abandoned N.D.; (2) failed to comply with the provision of a court order that
established the actions necessary for him to obtain the return of N.D.; and (3) knowingly
engaged in criminal conduct that resulted in his conviction for an offense and confinement or
1
The Honorable Victor H. Negron Jr. is the presiding judge of the 438th Judicial District Court of Bexar County,
Texas. The termination order was signed by Associate Judge Charles E. Montemayor.
04-12-00138-CV
imprisonment and an inability to care for N.D. for not less than two years from the date the
Department filed its petition. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. §§ 161.001(1)(N), (O), (Q). 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 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-