Court Opinion

ID: 3072586
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-10-16 00:48:29.713667+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:47:56.729457
License: Public Domain

In The

                               Court of Appeals
                    Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
                             _________________
                              NO. 09-13-00541-CV
                             _________________

                          IN THE INTEREST OF L.G.

________________________________________________________________________

                   On Appeal from the 279th District Court
                          Jefferson County, Texas
                         Trial Cause No. F-217,369
________________________________________________________________________

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

      M.N. appeals from an order terminating her parental rights to her minor

child L.G. The trial court found, by clear and convincing evidence, that multiple

statutory grounds existed for the termination and that termination of M.N.’s

parental rights would be in the best interest of the child. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann.

§ 161.001(1)(D), (E), (L), (N), (O), (2) (West Supp. 2013).

      M.N.’s court-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 re L.D.T., 161 S.W.3d 728, 731 (Tex.

App.—Beaumont 2005, no pet.). The brief provides counsel’s professional
                                         1
evaluation of the record. Counsel served appellant with a copy of the Anders brief

filed on her behalf. Counsel moved to withdraw and requested an extension of time

for appellant to file a pro se brief. On January 7, 2014, we granted appellant twenty

days to file a pro se brief.1 No pro se brief was received.

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

agree that any appeal would be frivolous. We conclude that no arguable grounds

for appeal exist, and we therefore affirm the judgment of the trial court. We grant

counsel’s motion to withdraw.

      AFFIRMED.

                                                ___________________________
                                                    CHARLES KREGER
                                                          Justice

Submitted on February 19, 2014
Opinion Delivered March 6, 2014

Before Kreger, Horton, and Johnson, JJ.

      1
         Notices were mailed to all addresses known to this Court for appellant, but
all of the court’s correspondence was returned as undeliverable. Appellant has not
made any attempts to remain in contact with the Court.
                                         2