### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-0 9 -00176-CV

Shaun quav ia T olb e r t, App e lla nt

v. Texas Depart m ent of Fam ily and P rote ctive Service s, Appellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF B ELL COUNTY , 146TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 224, 101- B , HO NORAB LE RICKMO RRIS , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N
This is a n a c c e le r a te d a p p e a l from an or der te rminating the par ental rig hts of appellant Shaunquavia Tolbert to her c hild A.X.W. Following a de novo trial, the district court f ound by clea r
and c onvin cin g evide nc e that ( i) To lbe rt ha d e ng a g e d in

c on du c t and

kn ow ing ly

pla c e d h e r c hil d with persons who eng ag ed in conduc t which enda ng ere d the phy sical and e motional well-beingof the child, (ii ) Tolbert failed to comply with provisions of a cour t order that specifica lly

established the ac tions necessa

ry for her to obtain the re turn of the c hild who had bee n in the temporar y manag ing c onservatorship of the Department for not less than nine months as a r esult of the child’s
remova l under c hapter

262 of the fa

mily code f or the a b u s e o r n eglect of the child, and (i ii) te rm inatio n o f the pa

re nt- c hil d re latio ns hip be tw e e n To lbe rt and the c hil d wa s in the be st i nte re st of the c hild. SeeTex. Fam. Code Ann. §§ 161.001, 262.001- .309 (West 2008).In her le tter, Tolber t primaril y co n t en ds that the Depa rtment failed to pr ove beyond a 1 rea sonable doubt the grounds for termination or t hat t ermination was in the child’s best interest. The measure or deg ree of proof for ter mination decisions, h oweve r, is clea r and c onvincing evidenc e. S e e T ex . Fa m . Code Ann. §§ 161.001, .206(a ) (West 2008). “‘ Clear a nd convincingevidenc e’ means the measure or deg ree of proof that will pr oduce in the mind of the trier of fac t a firm belief or convic tion as to the truth of the alleg ations soug ht to be established.” Id. § 101.007 (West 2008). 2 To lbe rt ’s c ourt -a

pp ointe d atto rn e y

ha s f ile d a br ief c on c lud ingthat th e a pp e a l is frivolou s and without merit. Counsel’s brief meets the re quirements of An de rs v . Ca lif

or nia , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by

prese nting a profe ssional evaluation of t he record demonstrating why there
are no arguable g rounds to be adva nced. See also Taylor v. Tex as Dep’t of Protec tive and R eg u la t o r y S ervs ., 160 S.W
. 3 d

6 4 1 , 6 4 6 -4 7 (T ex . Ap p . — Au s t i n2 0 0 5 , p et . d en i ed ) ( ap p l yi n g An de rs proce dure in a

ppeal f rom termination of pa

renta l rig hts). Tolbert rece ived a copy of counsel’s brief and wa s advised of he r rig ht to ex amine the a ppellate r ecor d and to file a pro se br ief. Tolber

t filed a pro se letter. 1 We have indepe ndently examined the rec ord, counse l’s b ri ef , and the pr o se letter, and we ag ree that the appe al is frivolous and without merit. The statutory g rounds for te rmination
wer e conc lusively

established. SeeTex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001( 1 )( E ), (O) ( West 2008); In reJ .F .C. , 96 S.W .3d 256, 264-65 (Tex. 2002) (standar ds of revie w for leg al and fa ct u al sufficie ncy

challeng es in pare ntal termination ca ses). Additio n al l y , the evidenc e wa s leg ally and fac tually sufficie nt that te rmination was in the best interest of the child. See In reJ .F .C. , 96 S.W .3d
a t 26 4- 65 ; Holley v . Adams , 5 44 S.W. 2d 36 7, 37 2 ( Tex
. 19 76 ) (fac tor s c ourt c on sid e rs in de te rm ini ngbe st i nte re st o f c hil d) . We fi nd no re ve rs ibl e e rr or

in t he re c or d. We fi nd no thi ngin3

the re cord that might ar g uably support the appe al. The order of termination is affir

med, and counsel’s motion to withdraw is g rante d.

__________________________________________ J an P. Patterson, J ustice
Be fore J ustices Patterson, Pury ear and Pember

ton Affir med Filed: September

30, 2009