Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

In re A.A.

Court of Appeals of Texas, Twelfth District, Tyler

March 29, 2019

IN THE INTEREST OF A.A., A CHILD

          APPEAL FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2 ANGELINA COUNTY, TEXAS (Tr.Ct.No. CV-00261-17-04)

          Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          PER CURIAM

         A.J.A. appeals the termination of his parental rights. His counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). We affirm.

         Background

         A.J.A. and B.E. are the parents of A.A.[1] On April 12, 2017, the Department of Family and Protective Services (the Department) filed an original petition for protection of the child, for conservatorship, and for termination of A.A.'s parental rights. The Department was appointed temporary managing conservator of the children, and the parents were allowed supervised visitation with the child.

         At the conclusion of the trial on the merits, the jury found, by clear and convincing evidence, that A.J.A. had engaged in one or more of the acts or omissions necessary to support termination of his parental rights under subsections (D), (E), (O), and (P) of Texas Family Code Section 161.001(b)(1). The jury also found that termination of the parent-child relationship between A.A. and A.J.A. was in the child's best interest. Based on these findings, the trial court ordered that the parent-child relationship between A.J.A. and A.A. be terminated. This appeal followed.

         Analysis Pursuant to Anders v. California

         A.J.A.'s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders, stating that he has diligently reviewed the appellate record and is of the opinion that the record reflects no reversible error and that there is no error upon which an appeal can be predicated. This Court has previously held that Anders procedures apply in parental rights termination cases when the Department has moved for termination. See In re K.S.M., 61 S.W.3d 632, 634 (Tex. App.-Tyler 2001, no pet.). In compliance with Anders, counsel's brief presents a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no reversible grounds on appeal and referencing any grounds that might arguably support the appeal. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400; Mays v. State, 904 S.W.2d 920, 922- 23 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 1995, no pet.).

         As a reviewing court, we must conduct an independent evaluation of the record to determine whether counsel is correct in determining that the appeal is frivolous. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (en banc); Mays, 904 S.W.2d at 923. We have carefully reviewed the appellate record and counsel's brief. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal.[2] See Taylor v. Tex. Dep't of Protective & Regulatory Servs., 160 S.W.3d 641, 646-47 (Tex. App.-Austin 2005, pet. denied).

         Disposition

         We agree with A.J.A.'s counsel that the appeal is wholly frivolous.[3] Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's judgment. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2.

         JUDGMENT

         THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and brief filed herein, and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.