1 

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

________________

NO. 09-22-00137-CV 

________________

IN THE INTEREST OF K.Y.

________________________________________________________________________ 

On Appeal from the 317th District Court

Jefferson County, Texas

Trial Cause No. F-238,197

________________________________________________________________________ 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his child, 

K.Y.1 See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001. The trial court found, by clear and 

convincing evidence, that statutory grounds exist for termination and that 

termination is in the best interest of the child. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 

161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), (N), (O), (Q), (2).

1 To protect the identity of the minor, we use initials to refer to the child. See 

Tex. R. App. P. 9.8(b)(2).
2

Appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel submitted a brief in which 

counsel contends there are no meritorious issues for appeal; counsel 

contemporaneously filed a motion to withdraw. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 

738 (1967); In re L.D.T., 161 S.W.3d 728, 731 (Tex. App.— Beaumont 2005, no 

pet.). The brief provides counsel’s professional evaluation of the record, discusses 

the evidence at trial and the applicable legal standard, the trial court’s ruling, and 

why the trial court’s ruling is supported by sufficient evidence. Counsel concludes 

there are no arguable grounds to be advanced on appeal. Counsel certified that 

Appellant was served with a copy of the Anders brief. On July 12, 2022, this Court 

notified Appellant of his right to file a pro se response, as well as the August 11, 

2022 deadline for doing so. This Court received no pro-se response from the 

Appellant.

We have independently reviewed the entire record and counsel’s brief, and 

we conclude that there are no arguable grounds for review, that no reversible error 

exists, and that Appellant’s appeal is frivolous. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744 

(emphasizing that the reviewing court—and not counsel—determines, after full 

examination of proceedings, whether the appeal is wholly frivolous). As a result, we 

affirm the trial court’s termination of Appellant’s parental rights. We further find no 

arguable error requiring us to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief this

appeal. Compare Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).
3

But we deny the motion to withdraw because this is a parental termination 

case and counsel’s motion to withdraw does not show “good cause” for withdrawal. 

See In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 (Tex. 2016) (In a parental termination case when 

the attorney files an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw, “an Anders motion to 

withdraw brought in the court of appeals, in the absence of additional grounds for 

withdrawal, may be premature.”). An attorney appointed under section 

107.013(a)(1) of the Texas Family Code continues to represent an indigent parent as 

outlined under section 107.016 of the Texas Family Code until the earliest of either 

the date the suit is dismissed, the date that all appeals in relation to any final order 

terminating parental rights are exhausted or waived, or the date the attorney is 

relieved of the attorney’s duties or replaced by another attorney after a finding of 

good cause is rendered by the court on the record. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. §§ 

107.013(a)(1), 107.016(2); In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d at 27.2

AFFIRMED.

 ________________________________

 CHARLES KREGER

 Justice

Submitted on September 6, 2022

Opinion Delivered September 15, 2022

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

2 We note that if Appellant decides to pursue review by the Supreme Court of 

Texas, counsel may satisfy her obligations to Appellant “by filing a petition for 

review that satisfies the standards for an Anders brief.” In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24,

27-28 (Tex. 2016).