Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-17-00064-CV
IN THE INTEREST OF D.B.M., a Child
From the 216th Judicial District Court, Kerr County, Texas
Trial Court No. 16246A
Honorable Cathy Morris, Judge Presiding
Opinion by: Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice
Marialyn Barnard, Justice
Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
Delivered and Filed: July 19, 2017
AFFIRMED; MOTION TO WITHDRAW DENIED
D.R.H. 1 appeals the trial court’s order terminating his parent-child relationship with the
child D.B.M. Appellant’s court-appointed appellate attorney filed a brief and motion to withdraw
containing a professional evaluation of the record, asserting 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 P.M., –— S.W.3d –—, No. 15-0171, 2016 WL 1274748
at *3 n.10 (Tex. April 1, 2016) (stating that Anders procedures protect indigent parents’ statutory
right to counsel on appeal in parental rights termination cases and apply in those cases). Appellant
was provided copies of the brief and the appellate record, and was advised of his right to file his
1
To protect the identity of the minor child, we refer to the father and child by their initials. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN.
§ 109.002(d) (West 2014); TEX. R. APP. P. 9.8.
04-17-00064-CV
own brief. Appellant has filed a pro se affidavit in which he asserts that he received ineffective
assistance of counsel and an unfair trial and that the evidence does not support the grounds for
termination found by the trial court.
We have thoroughly reviewed the record, the attorney’s Anders brief, and appellant’s pro
se affidavit, and we agree with counsel that the appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm
the trial court’s termination order.
However, we deny counsel’s motion to withdraw because counsel does not assert any
ground for withdrawal apart from his conclusion that the appeal is frivolous. See In re A.M., 495
S.W.3d 573, 583 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2016, pet. denied). Counsel’s duty to his client
extends through the exhaustion or waiver of all appeals, including the filing of a petition for review
in the Texas Supreme Court. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 107.016(2) (West 2014); In re P.M.,
2016 WL 1274748 at *3. After this court has rendered its decision, appointed counsel’s obligations
to his client may be satisfied by filing a petition for review that satisfies the standards for an Anders
brief. See In re P.M., 2016 WL 1274748, at *3 & n.14.
Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
-2-