Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-18-00915-CV
IN THE INTEREST OF I.A.A., a Child
From the 285th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2018PA00196
Honorable Charles E. Montemayor, Judge Presiding
Opinion by: Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice
Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice
Delivered and Filed: March 20, 2019
MOTION TO WITHDRAW DENIED; AFFIRMED
The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services filed this suit, seeking to
terminate the parental rights of I.A.A.’s parents. 1 After a bench trial, the court terminated the
rights of both parents and designated the Department as the children’s permanent managing
conservator. R.R., I.A.A.’s mother, timely appealed the trial court’s order.
The trial court found termination of R.R.’s parental rights is in I.A.A.’s best interest. The
court also found four independent grounds to terminate her rights: (1) she engaged in conduct that
endangered the child; (2) she constructively abandoned the child; (3) she used controlled
substances and failed to completely address the issue; and (4) she was the cause of the child being
1
To protect the identity of the minor child, we refer to the parties by their initials. See TEX. FAM. CODE § 109.002(d);
TEX. R. APP. P. 9.8.
04-18-00915-CV
born addicted to an illegally obtained controlled substance. See TEX. FAM. CODE
§ 161.001(b)(1)(E), (N), (P), and (R).
R.R.’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) (per curiam) (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 he sent R.R. 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 R.R. a form to use to
request access to the record. In addition, counsel filed a motion to withdraw and sent a copy of
the motion to R.R.
Appellant did not request access to the appellate record, and this court set a deadline for
appellant to file a pro se brief. Appellant has not filed a pro se brief, and the State has waived its
right to file a brief.
We have thoroughly reviewed the record and the attorney’s Anders brief. The record
establishes by clear and convincing evidence at least one of the grounds for termination and that
termination is in I.A.A.’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-
04-18-00915-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. “Once appointed by the trial court, counsel should be permitted to withdraw only for good
cause and on appropriate terms and conditions. Mere dissatisfaction of counsel or client with each
other is not good cause. Nor is counsel’s belief that the client has no grounds to seek further review
from the court of appeals’ decision. . . . In [the Texas Supreme Court], appointed counsel’s
obligations can be satisfied 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 (footnotes omitted).
Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
-3-