Anders Brief Denied – Affirmed

  • In the Interest of D.F. and A.F.
    • 091800043CV, 2018 WL 3384505
    • 1st District Court of Jasper
    • Justice Johnson, July 12, 2018
  • Parents of the children appeal from an order terminating parental rights. Appellants’ court-appointed counsel submitted a brief contending that there are no meritorious ground to be advanced on appeal and filed a motion to withdraw as counsel.
  • The Ninth Court agreed that any appeal would be frivolous but denied the motion to withdraw because an attorney’s duty extends through the exhaustion or waiver of all appeals, including an appeal to the Supreme Court of Texas.

Child Custody and Support – Affirmed

  • In the Interest of LJF
    • 09-17-00151-CV, 2018 WL 3384501
    • 279th District Court of Jefferson County
    • Justice McKeithen, July 12, 2018
  • F. argued trial court abused discretion in its award of retroactive child support. F. also complained that the trial court abused its discretion by ordering that X could determine the child’s primary residence without any geographic restriction.
  • Ninth Court held that there was some evidence to support the trial court’s award and application of the child support guidelines. Further, the Ninth Court held that the best interest of the child was considered and the trial court did not abuse its discretion by waiving geographical restrictions.

Standing – Reversed and Remanded

  • In the Interest of T.R.H. Jr.
    • 091700001CV, 2018 WL 2246545
    • 75th District Court of Liberty County
    • Justice Kreger, May 17, 2018
  • The trial court named mother and father as joint managing conservators of the minor, including a provision in the final order that provided for paternal grandmother’s right of first refusal for keeping the child during working hours. Grandmother was not a party to the suit. Mother later sought to modify the order, and grandmother filed a motion to intervene. Mother filed a motion to dismiss, and the trial court dismissed the grandmother’s suit on the grounds that she lacked standing to initiate or intervene in the lawsuit.
  • The Ninth Court held that the grandmother was a “party affected by an order,” and reversed the trial court.