Court Opinion

ID: 4041732
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-09-28 22:53:31.662015+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:29:16.032980
License: Public Domain

In The

                               Court of Appeals
                    Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
                           ____________________
                              NO. 09-15-00080-CV
                           ____________________

                          IN THE INTEREST OF J.D.

_______________________________________________________            ______________

                    On Appeal from the 410th District Court
                         Montgomery County, Texas
                       Trial Cause No. 13-11-12547 CV
________________________________________________________            _____________

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

      This is a parental-rights termination case. Following a bench trial, the trial

court signed a judgment terminating the parental rights of K.B. (Mother) and

J.W.D. (Father) to their child (J.D.).1 Father has appealed from the trial court’s

final judgment.

      The judgment reflects that the trial court found, by clear and convincing

evidence, that Father’s parental rights should be terminated because he failed to

      1
          To protect the identity of the parties, they have been identified by their
initials. See Tex. R. App. P. 9.8. Mother has not appealed from the trial court’s
final judgment.
                                         1
comply with a court order that established the actions necessary to obtain the return

of J.D., and because he had knowingly engaged in criminal conduct that resulted in

conviction and confinement and the inability to care for his child for a period of

not less than two years. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(1) (O), (Q) (West

2014). The trial court also found that terminating Father’s parent-child relationship

with J.D. was in J.D.’s best interest. Id. § 161.001(2) (West 2014).

      In the appeal, Father’s court-appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw,

along with an Anders brief. In these, Father’s counsel argues that no issues of

arguable merit are available to support an 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.). In the brief, counsel provides the court with counsel’s professional

evaluation of the record. In the motion to withdraw, Father’s counsel certified that

she sent Father a copy of the Anders brief and her motion to withdraw, and that she

informed Father of his right to review the records and to file a pro se response. See

In the Interest of K.D., 127 S.W.3d 66, 67 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2003,

no pet.). Although we granted Father an extension to file a response, no response

was filed.

      We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the trial court record. We conclude

that no arguable grounds for appeal exist. We also find nothing to indicate new

                                          2
counsel should be appointed to file another brief in Father’s appeal. Cf. Stafford v.

State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court’s

final judgment terminating Father’s parental rights, and we grant counsel’s motion

to withdraw. 2

      AFFIRMED.

                                                     _________________________
                                                          HOLLIS HORTON
                                                               Justice

Submitted on July 21, 2015
Opinion Delivered August 13, 2015

Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.

      2
        In connection with withdrawing from the case, counsel shall inform Father
of the result of this appeal and that he has a right to file a petition for review with
the Texas Supreme Court. See Tex. R. App. P. 53; In the Interest of K.D., 127
S.W.3d 66, 68 n.3 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, no pet.).
                                          3