in the Interest of A. G. C. M. II v. Department of Family and Protective Services

Opinion issued December 13, 2012

In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas ____________ NO. 01-12-00654-CV ____________

IN THE INTEREST OF A.G.C.M., II, A CHILD

On Appeal from the 315th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2012-00688J

MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, D.S.,1 appeals the trial court’s final order terminating her parental rights to the minor child, A.G.C.M., II. Appellant’s appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw, along with an Anders brief asserting that the appeal is without merit and that there are no arguable grounds for reversal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967). We affirm the trial court’s judgment and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

The procedures set forth in Anders are applicable to an appeal from a trial court’s order terminating parental rights when, as here, the appellant’s appointed appellate counsel concludes that there are no non-frivolous issues to assert on appeal. See Taylor v. Texas Dep’t of Protective and Regulatory Servs., 160 S.W.3d 641, 646–47 (Tex. App.—Austin 2005, pet. denied); In re D.E.S., 135 S.W.3d 326, 330 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, no pet.); In re K.D., 127 S.W.3d 66, 67 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, no pet.).

Counsel has filed a brief in accordance with Anders. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400. Counsel presents a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrates why there are no arguable grounds for reversal. See id.; Taylor, 160 S.W.3d at 646–47. Counsel concludes that, after a thorough review of the record, appellant’s appeal of the termination of her parental rights is frivolous and without merit. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; In re K.D., 127 S.W.3d at 67. Counsel has certified that she has delivered a copy of the brief to appellant and has informed appellant of her right to examine the appellate record and to file a response. See In re D.E.S., 135 S.W.3d at 329; In re K.D., 127 S.W.3d at 67. This Court has also notified appellant of her right to review the record and to file a pro se response. Appellant has not filed a response.

We have independently reviewed the entire record and counsel’s Anders brief. See In re D.E.S., 135 S.W.3d at 330; In re K.D., 127 S.W.3d at 67; see also Johnson v. Dep’t of Family & Protective Servs., No. 01-08-00749-CV, 2010 WL 5186806, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Dec. 23, 2010, no pet.) (not designated for publication). We agree with counsel’s assessment that the appeal is frivolous and without merit.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.2 Attorney Amy Ngo Lacy must immediately send the notice required by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 6.5(c) and file a copy of the notice with the Clerk of this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 6.5(c).

Laura Carter Higley Justice

Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Higley, and Sharp.