in the Interest of A.M.D., a Child
07-15-00134-CV
| Tex. App. | Jul 30, 2015Background
- DFPS removed A.M.D. (under one year old) in Dec 2013 for neglect/neglectful supervision and filed to conserve and terminate parental rights.
- The trial court ordered H.N.M. to complete a service plan (counseling, psychological evaluation, substance screenings, mental-health services) as conditions for reunification.
- H.N.M. failed to initiate or complete required services, missed visits, moved residences multiple times, became pregnant again, and tested positive for marijuana.
- After a March 2015 bench trial the court found by clear and convincing evidence that H.N.M. violated Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001(1)(O) and that termination was in the child’s best interest.
- Appellate counsel filed an Anders brief concluding there were no nonfrivolous issues; H.N.M. was given but did not file a pro se response. The court independently reviewed the record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether clear and convincing evidence supports termination under Tex. Fam. Code §161.001(1)(O) (failure to comply with court-ordered services) | Appellant did not press specific challenges on appeal (no pro se response) | DFPS: trial evidence shows H.N.M. failed to initiate/complete required services and child was in custody >9 months | Affirmed — sufficient evidence to find statutory ground proved |
| Whether termination is in the child’s best interest | No specific appellate argument from H.N.M. | DFPS: parental omissions and removal circumstances support best interest finding | Affirmed — evidence supports best interest determination |
| Whether counsel properly moved to withdraw under Anders | N/A (issue raised by appellate counsel’s motion) | Counsel: conscientious record review, advised appellant of rights, briefed reasons appeal is frivolous | Granted — court found Anders procedures satisfied |
| Whether independent appellate review reveals any nonfrivolous issues | Appellant did not identify issues | Appellate court and counsel independently reviewed the entire record | No nonfrivolous issues found; appeal frivolous; judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- In re K.M.L., 443 S.W.3d 101 (Tex. 2013) (standard for clear-and-convincing evidence in termination cases)
- Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367 (Tex. 1976) (factors for best-interest analysis)
- In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. 2002) (parental failure to comply with court-ordered services probative of termination grounds)
- In re E.C.R., 402 S.W.3d 239 (Tex. 2013) (establishing Section 161.001(1)(O) when child removed under Chapter 262 and in custody >9 months)
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (procedures for counsel withdrawal when appeal is frivolous)
- Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988) (requirement for independent appellate examination when counsel seeks withdrawal)