Court of Appeals of Texas, 2021

in the Interest of A.R.M., a Child

in the Interest of A.R.M., a Child
Court of Appeals of Texas · Decided May 19, 2021
in the Interest of A.R.M., a Child

Opinion

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-20-00604-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF A.R.M., a Child

From the 57th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2020PA00201

Honorable Charles E. Montemayor, Judge Presiding Opinion by: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice

Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice

Beth Watkins, Justice

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

Delivered and Filed: May 19, 2021

AFFIRMED; MOTION TO WITHDRAW DENIED

Appellant A.M., Jr. (“Father”) appeals the trial court’s order terminating his parental rights to his child, A.R.M. Father’s court-appointed appellate counsel filed a motion to withdraw and a brief containing a professional evaluation of the record, concluding there are no arguable grounds for reversal of the termination order. The brief satisfies the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). See In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 n.10 (Tex. 2016) (per curiam) (recognizing that Anders procedures apply in parental termination cases). Additionally, counsel represents that she provided Father with a copy of the brief and the motion to withdraw, advised Father of his right to review the record and file his own brief, and informed Father how to obtain a copy of the record, providing him with a form motion for access to the appellate record. We issued an order setting a deadline for Father to file a pro se brief. However, Father did not request the appellate record or file a pro se brief.

After reviewing the appellate record and appointed counsel’s brief, we conclude no plausible grounds exist for reversal of the termination order. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s termination order. We deny counsel’s motion to withdraw because it does not show good cause for withdrawal. See id. at 27 & n.7 (holding that counsel’s obligations in a parental termination case extend through exhaustion or waiver of all appeals and that withdrawal should be permitted by a court of appeals “only for good cause” (citing TEX. R. CIV. P. 10)).

Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.