Joe Manuel Tenorio, Sr. v. Texas Department of Human Services

cv2-190 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT OF TEXAS, AT AUSTIN NO. 3-92-190-CV JOE MANUEL TENORIO, SR., APPELLANT vs. TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, APPELLEE FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY, 277TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 87-931-F277, HONORABLE JOHN R. CARTER, JUDGE PER CURIAM Appellant Joe Manuel Tenorio, Sr. appeals from a decree of termination rendered by the district court of Williamson County. The district court terminated the parent-child relationship between Tenorio and each of his three children. We will affirm the decree of termination. A court may terminate a parent-child relationship if one or more of the grounds set forth in § 15.02(1) of the Family Code is proved and it is proved that termination is in the child's best interest. Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 15.02(1),(2) (West Supp. 1992); Texas Dept. of Human Servs. v. Boyd, 727 S.W.2d 531, 533 (Tex. 1987); Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367, 370 (Tex. 1976); Smith v. Sims, 801 S.W.2d 247, 250-51 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1990, no writ). Here, the district court found that Tenorio had knowingly placed the children in surroundings that endangered their physical and emotional well-being, § 15.02(1)(D); that he had engaged in conduct that endangered the children's physical and emotional well-being, § 15.02(1)(E); and that termination was in the children's best interest, § 15.02(2). Tenorio's counsel has filed a brief similar to that which Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), requires of court-appointed counsel in criminal causes. The single point of error states that there are no meritorious points of error and that the appeal is frivolous. The brief meets the requirements of Anders by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. Id. at 744; see also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). The instant proceeding is, however, a civil matter. Consequently, Tenorio has not presented to this Court any point of error for review or any argument and authorities in support thereof. See Tex. R. App. P. 74(d),(f); Fambrough v. Wagley, 169 S.W.2d 478, 482 (Tex. 1943); Larrumbide v. Doctors Health Facilities, 734 S.W.2d 685, 687 (Tex. App.--Dallas 1987, writ denied). Based on counsel's evaluation and statement that the appeal is without merit, an opportunity to rebrief would serve no useful purpose. See Tex. R. App. P. 83; Inpetco, Inc. v. Texas Am. Bank/Houston N.A., 729 S.W.2d 300 (Tex. 1987); Smith v. Valdez, 764 S.W.2d 26 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 1989, writ denied). Accordingly, the decree of termination is affirmed. [Before Chief Justice Carroll, Justices Jones and Kidd] Affirmed Filed: September 23, 1992 [Do Not Publish]