1 

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

________________

NO. 09-23-00181-CV 

________________

IN THE INTEREST OF S.R.H. III AND I.M.H.

________________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 75th District Court

Liberty County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 21DC-CV-01094

________________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Father appeals an order terminating his parental rightsto his minor children, 

Sam and Irene.1 The trial court found, by clear and convincing evidence, that 

statutory grounds exist for termination of Father’s parental rights and that

termination of his parental rights would be in the best interest of the children. See

Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), (O), (P), (2).2

1To protect the identity of the children, we use pseudonyms to refer to the 

children and the parents. See Tex. R. App. P. 9.8(b)(2). 2The trial court also terminated Mother’s parental rights, but she is not a party 

to this appeal.
2

Father’s appointed attorney submitted a brief in which she contends that there 

are no meritorious issues for appeal and that the appeal is frivolous. See Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967);In re L.D.T., 161 S.W.3d 728, 730–31 (Tex. 

App.—Beaumont 2005, no pet.)(notingAnders procedures apply in parental-rights 

termination cases). The brief presents the attorney’s professional evaluation of the 

record and explains why no arguable grounds exist to overturn the trial court’s 

judgment. The attorney represented to the Court that she gave Father a copy of the

Anders brief she filed, notified Father of his right to file a pro se brief, and provided 

Father a copy of the appellate record. The Court notified Father of his right to file a 

pro se response and the deadline for doing so. Father did not file a response with the 

Court.

We have independently evaluated the appellate record and the brief filed by 

Father’s court-appointed attorney. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988)

(citing Anders, 386 U.S. at 744); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 2005); In re K.R.C., 346 S.W.3d 618, 619 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2009, 

no pet.). Based on our review of the record, we have found nothing that would 

arguably support an appeal and agree that the appeal is frivolous and lacks merit.

See Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 827–28 (“Due to the nature of Anders briefs, by 

indicating in the opinion that it considered the issues raised in the briefs and 

reviewed the record for arguable error but found none, the court of appeals met the 
3

requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1.”); In re K.R.C., 346 

S.W.3d at 619. Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment of new 

counsel to re-brief the appeal. Cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 1991).

We affirm the trial court’s order terminating Father’s parental rights. Should 

Father decide to pursue an appeal to the Supreme Court of Texas, his counsel’s 

obligation can be met “by filing a petition for review that satisfies the standards for 

an Anders brief.” See In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27–28 (Tex. 2016) (citations 

omitted).

AFFIRMED.

W. SCOTT GOLEMON 

Chief Justice

 

Submitted on October 16, 2023

Opinion Delivered October 26, 2023

Before Golemon, C.J., Johnson and Wright, JJ.