1 An ders v. C alifornia, 386 U .S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed .2d 493 (1967 ).
2 The tria l co ur t ap po inte d a pp ella te c ou ns el to rep re se nt W as hin gto n v ia the di recti ves co nta ine d in the Te xas Fam ily Code . T EX
. F AM
. C ODE A NN . §107. 013 (Vernon Supp. 2006) (st ati ng that an i ndigent

parent is entitled to ap poin ted c oun sel in p roc eed ings to term inate th e pa rent/c hild relatio nsh ip). NO. 07-06-0083-CV IN THE COUR

T OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVEN TH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO PANEL D SEPTEMBER 5, 2006

______________________________ IN THE INTEREST OF B. J. L., a child

_________________________________ FROM THE 364 th DISTRIC T COURT O F LUBBOCK COUNTY; NO. 2002-517,417; HON. BRADLE Y S. UNDERWOOD, PRESI DING

_______________________________ Memorandum Opinion

_______________________________ Before QUINN, C.J. and REAVIS an d CAMPBELL, JJ. Daryl M. Washington appeals from an or der ter minating his parental rights to his daughter B. J. L. The trial cour t appointed Washington counsel to repr esent him on appeal. Thereafter, his appointed counsel filed an Anders 1 brie f an d mo tion to with draw. 2 In the brief, appell ate counsel cer tified that s he diligent ly rev iewed the r ecord and concluded the appeal was meri tless. So too did counsel i nform her client of her conclusion and of h i s right to review the record and file a pro se response to the b rief and motion.3 The issue is wi th r espect t o the t r ial court ’s ext ension of t he ter minati on suit one dayaft er t he statutorydea dline. See T EX
. F AM
. C ODE A NN
. §263.401( Vernon Supp. 2006) . However , t he Stat e non-sui ted the law suit ag ains t W ash ington befo re an y adjud ication of his rights m ak ing the issu e m oot. 2 This court also i nformed W ashington in writi ng of counsel’s motion and brief and of his right to respond by

August 16, 2006. Washington has failed to do so. Appellatecounsel discussed one possible issue for appeal but then expl ained why the issue was not viabl e. 3 We also reviewed the re cord as we are obligated to do to discover any arg uable groundsof appeal. Stafford v. Sta te, 81 3 S.W.2 d 503 , 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Upon conducting that review , we determi ned that Washington 1) had notice of the grounds pr

offered for terminating his parental rights except for his failure to complywith a court order, a nd 2) appeared at the hearing and h ad the opportunity to defend against thos e grounds thr ough use of counsel , the presentati on of evidence, an d the cross-examination of adverse witnesses. Furthermore , the evidence presented at trial legally and factually

supports one or

more of the findings that Washington 1) engaged in
con duc tor knowi ngly pl aced the child with pers ons who eng aged in conduc t that endangered th e p hysical or emotional w ell-being of the child, 2) voluntari ly, and w ith knowledge of

the pregnancy , abandoned the chil d’s mother beg inning at a time duri ng her pregnancy with t he child and con tinuing thr ough the birt h, failed to prov ide adequate supportor medical care for the mother duri ng the period of abandonment before thebirth of the child, and remained apart from t he child or fai led to support the chi ld since the b irth, and 3) knowi ngly eng aged in cri minal conduct th at has resulted in his conv iction of an offense and confinement or i mprisonment and inability to care for the chi ld for not lessthan4 The tr ial court ’s deci sion may be affi rmed if t he evidence s upports the existence of one statutory

ground assuming that the St ate al so prov ed th at term ination was in the b est inte res t of the child. In re A.V ., 113 S.W .3d 3 55, 3 62 (T ex. 2 003 ). 3 two years from t he date the petiti on was filed. 4 However, we do not find in the r ecord a petition allegingthe failure to comply w ith a courtorder as a g round for terminat ion. Because Washington did not receive notice o f t he latter all egation, the t rial court cannot rely on i t as a basis for termination. See In the Interest of S.R.M., 601 S.W.2d 766, 769 (Tex. Civ. App .–Amarillo 1980 , no writ ) (statingthatthe statutory grounds for termination mustbe stated in the petition). Ther efore, we wi ll reform the j udgment accordi ngly. The record also contains

evidence upon which thecourt could clearly and convinci ngly find that termination of Washington’s par ental rig hts was i n the best inter est of the child. Having found no arguable meritto the appeal, w e reform the judg ment by remov ing paragraph 7(d) (inv

olving Washington’s alleged fail ure to comply with a court order) as a ground warrant ing terminat ion and a ff irm the order as modified. So too do we gr ant
coun sel’s moti on to withd raw.

Brian Quinn Chief Justice