Summary
affirming termination order despite inability to inform appellant of rights pursuant to Anders
Summary of this case from In re OfOpinion
No. 04-11-00055-CV
Delivered and Filed: August 3, 2011.
Appealed from the 285th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, Trial Court No. 2009-PA-01783, Honorable Karen H. Pozza, Judge Presiding.
Affirmed.
Sitting: CATHERINE STONE, Chief Justice, SANDEE BRYAN MARION, Justice, REBECCA SIMMONS, Justice.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This is an appeal from the trial court's termination of appellant's parental rights to her seven children. The trial court terminated appellant's parental rights based on five grounds set forth in Texas Family Code section 161.001. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 161.001(1)(A), (D), (E), (N), (O) (West Supp. 2010). The trial court also terminated appellant's parental rights based on four mental health grounds set forth in Texas Family Code section 161.003. Id. § 161.003(a)(1), (2), (3), (4) (West 2008). Finally, the court determined termination was in the best interest of the children. Id. §§ 161.001(2), 161.003(a)(5).
Appellant's court-appointed attorney filed a brief containing a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating that there are no arguable grounds to be advanced because, in appellant's motion for new trial and statement of appellate points, appellant did not challenge all of the grounds upon which termination was based. Therefore, counsel concludes the appeal is without merit. See Fletcher v. Dep't of Family Protective Servs., 277 S.W.3d 58, 64 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2009, no pet.) (affirming judgment because judgment could be upheld on unchallenged ground). 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, at * 4 (Tex. App.-San Antonio May 21, 2003, no pet.) (applying Anders procedure in appeal from termination of parental rights). Counsel has attempted to provide appellant with a copy of the brief and inform her of her right to review the record and of her right to file a pro se brief. This court has attempted to contact appellant, but all mail has been returned as "undeliverable." Appellant has not filed a brief.
After reviewing the record, we agree that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. We GRANT counsel's motion to withdraw. Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 86 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1997, no pet.); Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n. 1 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1996, no pet.).