TUG provides an updated image every 1-2 years. packages are extended, replaced or added and therefore it is a good idea to update your distribution once in a while. The TeX Live distribution is evolving, i.e. This is not a problem usually, unless you are asking someone else to look at a particular error or problem and that person is working with another version and therefore may not be able to reproduce your issue. 2016) (per curiam).I found myself using the same TeX distribution for years, without updating it. 4 We take no action on counsel’s motion to withdraw from representation but call counsel’s attention to the continuing duty of representation through the exhaustion of proceedings, which may include filing a petition for review in the Supreme Court of Texas. Doss Justice 3 The Department was denied entry to the home. Accordingly, the trial court’s judgment is affirmed.4 Lawrence M. Moreover, the evidence is undisputed that Mother failed to comply with all the provisions of the court’s order necessary to obtain the return of her children. Combined, this evidence is legally and factually sufficient to support warranting termination of Mother’s relationship with R.M.
This included her arrest in June 2021 for possession of marijuana during the pendency of termination proceedings. Mother has a continued pattern of engaging in criminal activity resulting in fines and incarceration since 2007.December 2021, Mother admitted to using marijuana.
From June 2021 through February 2022, Mother did not submit to required drug testing.was removed when she tested positive for marijuana at birth, as did Mother. 2020) (per curiam) (court of appeals erred “by not detailing its analysis as required by ”). 2019) (per curiam), we also conducted an independent review of the evidence underlying the trial court’s findings that termination was warranted under section 161.001(b)(1)(D) and (E) of the Texas Family Code. Per the guidance of the Supreme Court of Texas in In re N.G., 577 S.W.3d 230 (Tex. We too independently reviewed the appellate record in search of arguable issues for appeal. Counsel’s discussion encompassed the sufficiency of the evidence to support (1) all four statutory grounds on which termination was based and (2) the finding that termination of the parent-child relationship was in the child’s best interest. In compliance with the principles enunciated in Anders, appellate counsel discussed potential areas for appeal concerning the grounds on which the trial court relied to terminate Mother’s parental rights under subsections 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), (M), and (O) of the Texas Family Code.
her right to file her own response if she wished to do so. The parental rights of her father, E.M., were also terminated, but he did not appeal. The Court also notified Mother of 1 To protect the child’s privacy, we refer to the parents and child by their initials. In a letter to Mother, appellate counsel informed Mother of her right to file a pro se response and provided a copy of the appellate record. In the latter, counsel certified that she diligently searched the record and concluded that the appeal was without merit. (14 months old) she appeals from that judgment.1 J.M.’s appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw, together with an Anders2 brief in support thereof. The trial court terminated Mother, J.M.’s, parental rights to her child, R.M. 2021-542,782 Honorable Kelly Tesch, Presiding AugMEMORANDUM OPINION Before QUINN, C.J., and PARKER and DOSS, JJ. 07-22-00108-CV IN THE INTEREST OF R.M., A CHILD On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo No.
0 kommentar(er)
