Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-18-00658-CV
IN THE INTEREST OF P.M.T., et al., Children
From the 408th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2017-PA-02080
Honorable Richard Garcia, Judge Presiding
Opinion by: Irene Rios, Justice
Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice
Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
Irene Rios, Justice
Delivered and Filed: January 30, 2019
MOTION TO WITHDRAW DENIED; AFFIRMED
Appellant Mother appeals the trial court’s order terminating her parental rights to her
children, P.M.T., D.M.T., and Z.M.T. The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services
(“the Department”) filed this suit, seeking termination of the parent-child relationship between the
children and Mother. 1 After a bench trial, the court found five independent grounds 2 upon which
1
To protect the identity of minor children in an appeal from an order terminating parental rights, we refer to the mother
as “Mother” and the children by their initials. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 109.002(d); TEX. R. APP. P. 9.8(b)(2).
2
Specifically, the trial court found evidence Mother
knowingly placed or knowingly allowed the children to remain in conditions or surroundings which
endanger the physical or emotional well-being of the children[;] … engaged in conduct or
knowingly placed the children with persons who engaged in conduct which endangers the physical
or emotional well-being of the children,[;] … constructively abandoned the children[;] … failed to
comply with the provisions of a court order[;] … [and] used a controlled substance … in a manner
that endangered the health or safety of the child, and (1) failed to complete a court-ordered substance
abuse treatment program[,] or (2) after completion of a court-ordered substance abuse treatment
program continued to abuse a controlled substance … [.]
See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), (N), (O), (P).
04-18-00658-CV
to terminate Mother’s rights and also found that termination was in the children’s best interest.
The trial court signed a termination order and designated the Department to be the children’s
permanent managing conservator. Mother timely appealed the trial court’s order.
Appellant’s court-appointed appellate attorney filed a brief in which he concluded there
are no non-frivolous issues to be raised on appeal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967);
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). Counsel certified that he sent Mother a copy of the brief and a letter advising her of her
rights to review the record and to file a pro se brief. Counsel also provided Mother a form to use
to request access to the record. In addition, counsel filed a motion to withdraw. This court issued
an order which set deadlines for Mother to request access to the record and to file a pro se brief
and abating counsel’s motion to withdraw. Mother did not request access to the appellate record
or file a pro se brief.
We have thoroughly reviewed the record and counsel’s Anders brief. The record
establishes by clear and convincing evidence at least one of the grounds for termination and that
termination is in the children’s best interest. See TEX. FAM. CODE § 161.001; In re J.O.A., 283
S.W.3d 336, 344-45 (Tex. 2009); In re A.V., 113 S.W.3d 355, 362 (Tex. 2003). Upon a thorough
review of the record, we conclude the evidence is legally and factually sufficient to support the
termination order and there are no other arguably meritorious grounds for appeal. Therefore, we
affirm the trial court’s termination order.
Counsel filed a motion to withdraw in conjunction with his Anders brief. We deny
counsel’s motion to withdraw because it 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
-2-
04-18-00658-CV
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 § 107.016(3); In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d
at 27. After this court has rendered its decision, appointed counsel’s obligations to his client may
be met by filing a petition for review that satisfies the standards for an Anders brief. In re P.M.,
520 S.W.3d at 27-28 & n.14.
Irene Rios, Justice
-3-