Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-18-00576-CV In the INTEREST OF C.J.J. JR., a Child From the 408th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2017PA01036 Honorable Richard Garcia, Judge Presiding Opinion by: Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Delivered and Filed: December 27, 2018 MOTION TO WITHDRAW DENIED; AFFIRMED The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services filed this suit, seeking to terminate the parent-child relationship between C.J.J. Jr. 1 and his parents. After a trial to the bench, the court found five independent grounds 2 to terminate appellant C.J.’s parental rights and found that termination is in C.J.J. Jr.’s best interest. The trial court signed a termination order and designated the Department to be the child’s permanent managing conservator. C.J. timely appealed the trial court’s order.

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.

TEX. FAM. CODE § 161.001(b)(1)(D) (knowingly allowed child to remain in conditions that endangered his physical or emotional well-being); (E) (engaged in conduct that endangered child’s physical or emotional well-being); (F) (failed to support child in accordance with his ability); (N) (constructively abandoned child); (O) (failed to comply with court ordered services); and (P) (used controlled substance and failed to completely address issue).

04-18-00576-CV

Appellant’s court-appointed appellate attorney has filed a brief in which she 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 that she sent appellant a copy of the brief and a letter advising him of his rights to review the record and to file a pro se brief. Counsel also provided appellant a form to use to request access to the record. In addition, counsel filed a motion to withdraw.

Appellant did not request access to the appellate record, and this court issued an order setting a deadline for appellant to file a pro se brief and holding the motion to withdraw in abatement. Appellant has not filed a pro se 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 C.J.J. Jr.’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 her Anders brief. We deny the motion. See In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d at 27. Counsel’s duty to her 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 27-28.

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

-2-