1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-22-00111-CV

__________________

IN THE INTEREST OF E.L.W.

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 279th District Court

Jefferson County, Texas

Trial Cause No. F-239,383

__________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Mother and Father appeal from an order terminating their parental rights to 

their eleven-month-old daughter, E.L.W. The trial court found, by clear and 

convincing evidence, that statutory grounds exist for termination of Mother’s and 

Father’s parental rights and that termination of their parental rights would be in the 

best interest of the child. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), (F), (N), 

(O), (2).

Mother’s and Father’s appointed attorneys submitted briefs in which both 

attorneys contend that there are no meritorious issues for appeal and that the appeals 

are frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); In re L.D.T., 161 
2

S.W.3d 728, 730-31 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2005, no pet.) (Anders procedures 

apply in parental-rights termination cases). The briefs present the attorneys’ 

professional evaluation of the record and explain why no arguable grounds exist to 

overturn the trial court’s judgment. Both attorneys represented to the Court that they 

gave Mother and Father a copy of the Anders brief they filed, notified both parents 

of their right to file a pro se brief, and provided Mother and Father a copy of the 

appellate record. The Court notified Mother and Father of their right to file a pro se 

response and of the deadline for doing so. Neither Mother nor Father filed a response 

with the Court.

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

Mother’s and Father’s court-appointed attorneys. 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 we agree that the appeals are frivolous and lack 

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 reversible error but found none, the court of appeals met the 

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 
3

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

App. 1991).

We affirm the trial court’s order terminating Mother’s and Father’s parental 

rights. We deny the motions to withdraw filed by Mother’s and Father’s courtappointed appellate attorneys because the right to counsel in suits seeking the 

termination of parental rights extends through the exhaustion or waiver of all 

appeals. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 107.016(2)(B); In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 

(Tex. 2016). Accordingly, the obligation of Mother’s counsel to Mother and the 

obligation to Father’s counsel to Father have not been discharged. See In re P.M., 

520 S.W.3d at 27. Should Mother or Father decide to pursue an appeal to the 

Supreme Court of Texas, their respective counsel’s obligation can be met “by filing 

a petition for review that satisfies the standards for an Anders brief.” See id. at 27-

28.

AFFIRMED.

_________________________

 LEANNE JOHNSON

Justice

Submitted on August 15, 2022

Opinion Delivered August 18, 2022

Before Kreger, Horton and Johnson, JJ.