Court Opinion

ID: 9893664
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-29 08:13:34.925551+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:04:51.879289
License: Public Domain

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed October 19, 2023.

                                        In The

                      Fourteenth Court of Appeals

                                NO. 14-23-00365-CV

                     IN THE INTEREST OF T.J., A CHILD

                     On Appeal from the 310th District Court
                             Harris County, Texas
                       Trial Court Cause No. 2021-70788

                           MEMORANDUM OPINION

      Mother’s counsel contends that there is no non-frivolous ground to challenge
the trial court’s judgment terminating Mother’s parental rights to the Child because
there is legally and factually sufficient evidence to support at least one predicate
ground for termination, including endangerment under subsection (E), and that
termination is in the Child’s best interest.

      The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967), presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there
are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See In re D.E.S., 135 S.W.3d 326, 329
(Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, no pet.) (Anders procedures apply to an
appeal from termination of parental rights). Mother’s counsel notified this court
that counsel delivered to Mother a copy of the Anders brief and this court’s letter
informing Mother about how to obtain a copy of the record and her right to file a
pro se response. See id. at 329–30. No pro se response has been filed.

      We have reviewed the record and counsel’s brief and agree that there is no
non-frivolous ground to challenge the trial court’s judgment terminating Mother’s
parental rights because the evidence is legally and factually sufficient to support
the trial court’s best-interest finding and the finding that Mother engaged in
conduct that endangered the physical or emotional well-being of the Child under
Section 161.001(b)(1)(E) of the Family Code. We find no reversible error in the
record. A detailed discussion of this issue would add nothing to the jurisprudence
of the state. See In re D.E.S., 135 S.W.3d at 330.

      Accordingly, the trial court’s judgment is affirmed.

                                             PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Wise, Zimmerer, and Poissant.