Court Opinion

ID: 4043202
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-09-28 23:17:07.36663+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:40:36.472613
License: Public Domain

In The

                                 Court of Appeals
                     Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
                               _________________
                                NO. 09-15-00242-CV
                               _________________

            IN THE INTEREST OF E.D., M.S., M.S., R.S., and R.C.
________________________________________________________________________

                    On Appeal from the 317th District Court
                          Jefferson County, Texas
                         Trial Cause No. C-221,760
________________________________________________________________________

                           MEMORANDUM OPINION

      K.S. appeals from an order terminating her parental rights to her minor

children, E.D., M.S., M.S., R.S., and R.C. 1 After a bench trial, the trial court found,

by clear and convincing evidence, that statutory grounds existed for the

termination of K.S.’s parental rights and that termination of her rights would be in

the best interest of the children. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(1)(D), (E),

(N), (O), (P), (R), (2) (West 2014).

      1
         The trial court also terminated the parental rights of the children’s
respective alleged fathers, but the fathers did not appeal the trial court’s judgment
and are not parties to this appeal.
                                          1
      K.S.’s court-appointed appellate counsel submitted a brief in which counsel

contends 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 evaluation of

the record. Counsel certified that counsel served K.S. with a copy of the Anders

brief filed on her behalf. This Court notified K.S. 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.

      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. Cf.

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

court’s order terminating K.S.’s parental rights, and we grant counsel’s motion to

withdraw. 2

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

                                              ______________________________
                                                     CHARLES KREGER
                                                          Justice

Submitted on October 9, 2015
Opinion Delivered October 29, 2015

Before Kreger, Horton, and Johnson, JJ.

                                          3