Court Opinion

ID: 5133870
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-12-10 07:14:48.719901+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:23:40.497519
License: Public Domain

In The

                                Court of Appeals

                    Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

                               __________________

                               NO. 09-21-00210-CV
                               __________________

                   IN THE INTEREST OF L.D.R.
__________________________________________________________________

               On Appeal from the County Court at Law
                       Orange County, Texas
                     Trial Cause No. C190096-D
__________________________________________________________________

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

       C.B. appeals from an order terminating her parental rights to her minor child,

L.D.R.1 The trial court found, by clear and convincing evidence, that statutory

grounds exist for termination of C.B.’s parental rights and that termination of her

parental rights would be in the best interest of L.D.R. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. §

161.001(b)(1) (D), (O), (2).

      C.B.’s appointed appellate counsel submitted a brief in which counsel

contends that there are no arguable grounds to be advanced on appeal. See Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); In the Interest of L.D.T., 161 S.W.3d 728, 731 (Tex.

      1
        We refer to the appellant and her child by their initials to protect their
identities. See Tex. R. App. P. 9.8(b)(2).
                                           1
App.—Beaumont 2005, no pet.). The brief provides counsel’s professional

evaluation of the record. Counsel served C.B. with a copy of the Anders brief filed

on her behalf. This Court notified C.B. of her right to file a pro se response, as well

as the deadline for doing so. C.B. filed a pro se response. We have independently

reviewed the appellate record, counsel’s brief, and C.B.’s pro se response, and we

agree that any appeal would be frivolous. We find no arguable error requiring us to

order appointment of new counsel to re-brief this appeal. Cf. Stafford v. State, 813

S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).

      Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s order terminating C.B.’s parental

rights. We deny the motion to withdraw filed by C.B.’s court-appointed counsel,

because an attorney’s duty extends through the exhaustion or waiver of all appeals.

See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 107.016(3)(B); In the Interest of P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24,

27 (Tex. 2016). In the event C.B. decides to pursue an appeal to the Texas Supreme

Court, counsel’s obligations to C.B. can be met “by filing a petition for review that

satisfies the standards for an Anders brief.” See In the Interest of P.M., 520 S.W.3d

at 27-28.

      AFFIRMED.

                                                     _________________________
                                                        W. SCOTT GOLEMON
                                                            Chief Justice
Submitted on November 23, 2021
Opinion Delivered December 9, 2021

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

                                          2