TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-08-0041-CV

In the Interest of K. M. B., a Child

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMAL COUNTY, 274TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. C2007-0803C, HONORABLE CHARLES A. STEPHENS II, JUDGE PRESIDING

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This is an appeal concerning the termination of appellant Jody Ray Brandt’s parental rights to his child K.M.B. Brandt appeared pro se at a bench trial where the court, after hearing both sides and considering evidence advanced by both parties, ordered Brandt’s parental rights terminated.

Brandt, who was incarcerated at the time of the hearing and transported to Comal County for the purposes of being present for the hearing, filed a pro se notice of appeal and requested a court- appointed attorney to represent him on appeal.

Brandt’s court-appointed attorney has filed a brief concluding that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. Counsel’s brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See also Taylor v. Texas Dept. of Protective and Regulatory Servs., 160 S.W.3d 641, 646-47 (Tex. App.—Austin 2005, pet. denied) (applying Anders procedure in appeal from termination of parental rights). Brandt received a copy of counsel’s brief and was advised of his right to examine the appellate record and to file a pro se brief. Brandt filed a “Pro Se Response” and a “Pro Se Letter.”

In the interest of justice, we address the issues that Brandt raises in his pro se response and letter. Brandt asserts that the judge who terminated his parental rights was biased against him.

Brandt also contends that he was not given sufficient notice of the hearing to prepare his case. To preserve error, an appellant must raise and properly present the claim to the trial court. See Tex. R. App. P. 33.1. Brandt did not file a motion pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 18a to recuse or disqualify the judge, did not present evidence to support his contention that the judge had a prior relationship with Brandt, or otherwise raise his complaint of bias to the trial court. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 18a. Similarly, Brandt did not object to proceeding with the hearing. Although Brandt testified that he did not have time to prepare for the case, he did not object to proceeding with the hearing, answering the trial court affirmatively at the beginning of the hearing that he was ready to proceed.

Because Brandt raises claims that he did not present to the trial court, he has failed to preserve error.

We have independently examined the record, counsel’s brief, the pro se response, and the pro se letter, and agree that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. We find no reversible error in the record. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. The judgment of the trial court is therefore affirmed, and counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.

__________________________________________ Jan P. Patterson, Justice Before Justices Patterson, Puryear and Henson Affirmed Filed: July 25, 2008