Court Opinion

ID: 5120264
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-10-22 07:16:04.38826+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:22:16.722900
License: Public Domain

In The

                                Court of Appeals

                    Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

                               ________________

                               NO. 09-21-00147-CV
                               ________________

                         IN THE INTEREST OF B.L.B.

________________________________________________________________________

                   On Appeal from the County Court at Law
                           Orange County, Texas
                        Trial Cause No. C190094-D
________________________________________________________________________

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

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

B.L.B. 1 The trial court found, based on clear and convincing evidence, that statutory

grounds exist for terminating C.N.B.’s parental rights and terminating her rights was

in B.L.B’s best interest.2 See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), (F), (I),

(N), (O), (b)(2); § 161.003. C.N.B.’s court-appointed appellate counsel submitted a

      1
        To protect the minor’s identity, we use initials for the child and Mother. See
Tex. R. App. P. 9.8(b)(2).
      2
         The trial court also terminated Father’s parental rights after he signed an
affidavit of voluntary relinquishment, but he is not a party to this appeal.
                                          1
brief in which counsel asserts there are no meritorious 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

(Tex. App.—Beaumont 2005, not pet.). The brief provides counsel’s professional

evaluation of the record and explains that after a thorough review of the record, an

appeal would be frivolous. Counsel certified C.N.B. was served with a copy of the

Anders brief filed on her behalf. Then, the Court notified C.N.B. of her right to file

a pro se response and the deadline for filing a response. C.N.B. filed a pro se

response.

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

C.N.B.’s pro se response. We agree an appeal would be frivolous. We find no

arguable error exists that requires appointing new counsel to re-brief C.N.B.’s

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.N.B.’s parental

rights. We deny the motion to withdraw filed by her court-appointed appellate

counsel. An attorney’s duty extends through the time the client exhausts or waives

her right to appeal our ruling to the Texas Supreme Court. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann.

§ 107.016(2)(B); In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 (Tex. 2016). If C.N.B. decides to

appeal to the Supreme Court of Texas, counsel may meet his obligations to C.N.B.

“by filing a petition for review that satisfies the standards for an Anders brief.” See

In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d at 27-28.

                                          2
      AFFIRMED.

                                           ________________________________
                                                   CHARLES KREGER
                                                         Justice

Submitted on September 27, 2021
Opinion Delivered October 21, 2021

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

                                       3