Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas October 11, 2018 No. 04-18-00507-CV IN THE INTEREST OF R.G.M.R. A CHILD, From the 150th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2017-PA-01101 Honorable Peter Sakai, Judge Presiding

ORDER Gerald A. Uretsky, court-appointed counsel representing the father in this parental rights termination case, filed a motion for extension of time to file appellant’s brief and the brief on September 26, 2018.

As a matter of widely-known, well-established law, Appellant’s sole issue, even if sustained, cannot afford any relief for Appellant. We conclude Appellant’s appeal as presented in the brief is wholly frivolous.

After a bench trial on the merits, the trial court found Appellant’s course of conduct met four statutory grounds for termination under Family Code section 161.001(b)(1): (F), (N), (O), and (P). See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. 161.001(b)(1) (Supp.). Appellant’s brief challenges the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence supporting the trial court’s finding only on ground (F). The brief does not challenge the evidence supporting the best interest of the child finding, nor does it challenge the evidence supporting the other statutory grounds, i.e., (N), (O), or (P).

For at least four decades, the law has been clear that a parent’s rights may be terminated based on a single ground. E.g., Wiley v. Spratlan, 543 S.W.2d 349, 351 (Tex. 1976); see also In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256, 261 (Tex. 2002). Where a trial court has found multiple grounds and the brief challenges only one, the appeal is wholly frivolous. Cf. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 13.003(b) (“In determining whether an appeal is frivolous, a judge may consider whether the appellant has presented a substantial question for appellate review.”).

We GRANT Appellant’s motion for extension of time to file the brief; the brief is deemed timely filed.

However, we STRIKE Appellant’s brief and ORDER court-appointed attorney Gerald A.

Uretsky to file an amended brief that meets his obligations to this court and his client within TEN DAYS of the date of this order. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.9 (properly presenting case).

If counsel is unable to make good-faith arguments and contentions in support of any issue which may afford Appellant some relief on appeal, counsel may file a brief and a motion to withdraw in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).

_________________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 11th day of October, 2018.

___________________________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE, Clerk of Court