Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-18-00306-CV
IN THE INTEREST OF S.R., L.R., and C.J., Children
From the 224th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2017PA01218
Honorable Richard Garcia, Associate Judge Presiding
Opinion by: Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice
Marialyn Barnard, Justice
Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
Delivered and Filed: September 26, 2018
MOTION TO WITHDRAW DENIED; AFFIRMED
The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services filed this suit, seeking to
terminate the rights of the parents of the children S.R., L.R., and C.J. 1 The record reflects the
father of S.R. and L.R. was determined to be deceased. After a trial to the bench, the court
designated A.L., the paternal grandfather of S.R. and L.R., to be their permanent managing
conservator; named C.J.’s father, C.J., his permanent managing conservator; designated the
children’s mother, E.R., a possessory conservator of all three children; and dismissed the
Department from the case. E.R. timely appealed the trial court’s order.
1
To protect the identity of the minor children, we refer to the parties by their initials. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN.
§ 109.002(d) (West Supp. 2017); TEX. R. APP. P. 9.8.
04-18-00306-CV
Appellant’s court-appointed appellate attorney filed a brief in which he concluded there
are no non-frivolous issues to be raised on appeal. Counsel certified that he sent E.R. a copy of
the brief and a letter advising her of his conclusion and of her rights to review the record and to
file a pro se brief. Counsel’s letter also provided E.R. a form to use to request access to the record
and enclosed a copy of counsel’s motion to withdraw, which counsel stated he had filed. Counsel
subsequently filed a motion to withdraw in this court.
The brief minimally meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).
See In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 n.10 (Tex. 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 did not request access to the appellate record, and this court then set a
deadline for appellant to file a pro se brief. Appellant did not file a pro se brief.
We have thoroughly reviewed the record and the attorney’s Anders brief, and we agree
with counsel that the appeal is without merit. See Interest of K.S.L., 538 S.W.3d 107, 112 (Tex.
2017). We therefore affirm the trial court’s order. However, we deny counsel’s motion to
withdraw because the motion does not assert any ground for withdrawal apart from counsel’s
conclusion that the appeal is frivolous. See In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d at 27; 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., 520
S.W.3d at 27.
Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
-2-