Court Opinion

ID: 4636888
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2020-11-24 22:52:57.369242+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:58:37.835165
License: Public Domain

In The

                                 Court of Appeals

                     Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

                               __________________

                               NO. 09-20-00181-CV
                               __________________

                           IN THE INTEREST OF I.E.

__________________________________________________________________

               On Appeal from the 279th District Court
                      Jefferson County, Texas
                     Trial Cause No. C-237,025
__________________________________________________________________

                           MEMORANDUM OPINION

      S.E. (Father) appeals from an order terminating his parental rights to his minor

child, I.E. For a trial court to terminate a parent’s rights to his children, the State

must prove by clear and convincing evidence (1) that the parent committed an act

prohibited under section 161.001(1) of the Texas Family Code and (2) that

terminating the parent’s rights is in the children’s best interest. See Tex. Fam. Code

Ann. § 161.001(b)(1)-(2). Here, the parties tried the case to the bench, and the trial

court found clear and convincing evidence supported the Department of Family and

Protective Service’s allegations claiming Father’s rights should be terminated based

                                          1
on several grounds in section 161. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(b)(1)(D),

(E), (O), (P). The trial court also found that terminating Father’s rights is in I.E.’s

best interest. See id. § 161.001(b)(2).

      Father then appealed from the trial court’s order terminating his parental rights

to I.E. Subsequently, Father’s court-appointed appellate counsel submitted a brief in

which counsel contends that no arguable grounds can be advanced to support

Father’s appeal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); In the Interest of

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. Counsel served Father with

a copy of the Anders brief filed on his behalf. After Father’s counsel filed the Anders

brief, the Court notified Father of his right to file a pro se response, and the deadline

to do so. Father did not respond to the Court’s notice.

      We have independently reviewed the appellate record. Based on the record

before us, we find any appeal would be frivolous as there is no arguable error that

would require the Court to have another attorney appointed to re-brief Father’s

appeal. Cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). For these

reasons, we affirm the trial court’s order terminating Father’s parental rights.

      AFFIRMED.

                                                      _________________________
                                                           HOLLIS HORTON
                                                                Justice

                                           2
Submitted on October 19, 2020
Opinion Delivered November 19, 2020

Before Kreger, Horton and Johnson, JJ.

                                         3