Court Opinion

ID: 3194939
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-04-18 07:20:11.725713+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:31:25.757587
License: Public Domain

In The

                                Court of Appeals
                    Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
                                ________________

                               NO. 09-15-00475-CV
                                ________________

                          IN THE INTEREST OF W.I.

__________________________________________________________________

             On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 3
                     Montgomery County, Texas
                   Trial Cause No. 14-10-11209-CV
__________________________________________________________________

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

      A.L. appeals from an order terminating her parental rights to the minor child,

W.I. 1 The trial court found, by clear and convincing evidence, that statutory

grounds exist for termination of the parental rights of A.L. and that termination of

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

Ann. § 161.001(b)(1)(D), (M), (O), (Q) (West Supp. 2015); id. § 161.001(b)(2).

      Court-appointed appellate counsel or A.L. submitted a brief in which

counsel contends there are no arguable grounds to be advanced on appeal. See

      1
        The trial court’s order also terminated the rights of the child’s father, but
the child’s father did not file a notice of appeal.
                                         1
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

evaluation of the record. Counsel served A.L. with a copy of the Anders brief. This

Court notified A.L. of her right to file a pro se response, as well as the deadline for

doing so. This Court did not receive a pro se response from A.L.

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

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. Compare

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

court’s order terminating the parental rights of A.L., but we deny counsel’s motion

to withdraw without prejudice as premature. See In the Interest of P.M., No. 15-

0171, 2016 Tex. LEXIS 236, at **5-8 (Tex. Apr. 1, 2016) (not yet released for

publication).

      AFFIRMED.

                                              ______________________________
                                                     STEVE McKEITHEN
                                                        Chief Justice

Submitted on March 16, 2016
Opinion Delivered April 14, 2016

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

                                          2