Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourth District, San Antonio
IN THE INTEREST OF J.N.M., N.I.M., G.L.M., and H.Y.M., Children
From the 45th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2011-PA-02633 Honorable Richard Garcia, Judge Presiding
Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice, Marialyn Barnard, Justice Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice.
Marialyn Barnard, Justice.
Appellant mother, Melissa R., appeals the trial court's judgment terminating her parental rights to her children, J.N.M., N.I.M., G.L.M., and H.Y.M. The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services ("the Department") moved to have appellant's parental rights terminated on a variety of grounds. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. §§ 161.001(1)(A)-(F), (K), (N)-(Q); 161.003(a) (West 2008 & Supp. 2012). After a bench trial, the trial court found appellant's parental rights should be terminated because she failed to comply with the provision of a court order that established the actions necessary for her to obtain the return of her children. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 161.001(1)(O). The trial court also determined termination would be in the best interests of the children. Id. § 161.001(2).
Appellant's court-appointed appellate attorney has filed a motion to withdraw and a brief containing a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating there are no arguable grounds to be advanced and concluding the appeal is frivolous. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). See In re R.R., No. 04-03-00096-CV, 2003 WL 21157944, *4 (Tex. App.—San Antonio May 21, 2003, order) (applying Anders procedure to appeals from orders terminating parental rights), disp. on merits, 2003 WL 22080522 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Sept. 10, 2003, no pet.) (mem. op.). Appellant was provided a copy of the brief and informed of her right to file her own brief. See Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 85-86 (Tex. App.—San Antonio July 23, 1997, no pet.); In re R.R., 2003 WL 21157944, at *4. Appellant did not file a pro se brief.
We have reviewed the record and the attorney's brief and we agree with counsel that the appellate points do not present a substantial question for appellate review. Accordingly, we hold the trial court did not err in terminating appellant's parental rights. We ...