In the Interest of E.R.H., Children v. the State of Texas

Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-25-00369-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF E.R.H., et al, Children

From the 166th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2024-PA-00362
Honorable Laura Salinas, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: H. Todd McCray, Justice

Sitting: Irene Rios, Justice
Lori Massey Brissette, Justice
H. Todd McCray, Justice

Delivered and Filed: January 28, 2026

AFFIRMED

Appellant Father appeals the trial court’s order terminating his parental rights to his

children, D.H., E.W.H., E.M.H., L.H., M.H., and C.H. 1,2 Following a de novo hearing, the trial

court found, by clear and convincing evidence, that Father had engaged in the conduct described

by Texas Family Code section 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), and (O) and that termination of Father’s

parental rights was in the children’s best interest. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. §§ 161.001(b)(1)(D),

(E), (O), 161.001 (b)(2).

1
To protect the identity of minor children in an appeal from an order terminating parental rights, we refer to appellant
as “Father” and to the children by their initials. See TEX. FAM CODE ANN. § 109.002(d); TEX. R. APP. P. 9.8(b)(2).
2
At the time the Department of Family Protective Services became involved in this case, the family included two
additional children, E.R.H. and N.J.H. Both have since reached the age of majority and are not subject to the
termination order on appeal.
04-25-00369-CV

Father’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief containing a professional

evaluation of the record, with citations to the record and legal authority, in which she concludes

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 has certified that she provided Father with a copy of the brief, informed him

of his right to review the record and file his own brief, and provided him with a form motion for

access to the appellate record. This court issued an order setting a deadline for Father to request a

copy of the record and to file a pro se brief. Father did not request a copy of the record, nor did he

file a brief.

After a thorough review of the appellate record and counsel’s brief, we conclude the record

establishes by clear and convincing evidence the grounds for termination and that termination is

in the children’s best interest. We find no plausible justification for reversal of the termination

order. Accordingly, the order of termination is affirmed.

H. Todd McCray, Justice

-2-