Court Opinion

ID: 6324560
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-03-18 07:13:52.089294+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:42.210678
License: Public Domain

In The

                                Court of Appeals

                    Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

                               __________________

                               NO. 09-21-00343-CV
                               __________________

                         IN THE INTEREST OF E.G.T.

__________________________________________________________________

               On Appeal from the County Court at Law
                       Orange County, Texas
                     Trial Cause No. C200637-D
__________________________________________________________________

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

      Following a trial to the bench, the trial court terminated Mother’s and Father’s

parent-child relationship with seven-year-old E.G.T. The judgment states the trial

court found, by clear and convincing evidence, that (1) Mother knowingly placed or

allowed E.G.T. to remain in conditions that endangered her well-being, (2) engaged

in conduct or knowingly placed the child with persons who engaged in conduct who

endangered E.G.T.’s physical or emotional well-being, and (3) failed to comply with

the provision of a court order establishing the actions necessary for Mother to obtain

                                          1
the child’s return.1 The trial court also found that terminating Mother’s parent-child

relationship with E.G.T. is in the child’s best interest.2 As to Father, the trial court

found that Father executed an irrevocable affidavit relinquishing his parental rights

and that terminating his rights is in E.G.T.’s best interest.

      After the trial court signed the order, Mother filed a notice to appeal but Father

did not.

      On appeal, Mother’s court-appointed attorney filed a brief. The brief filed in

Mother’s appeal provides the Court with a professional evaluation of the record.

According to the brief, no arguable grounds exist to support Mother’s appeal.3

Mother’s attorney certified she sent Mother a copy of the brief, and upon receiving

the brief, the Clerk of the Ninth Court of Appeals notified Mother she had the right

to file a pro se response. Even so, the appellate record shows Mother did not respond.

      We have independently reviewed the record. Based on that review, we find

Mother’s appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we need not appoint another attorney to

re-brief the appeal.4

      1
       See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), (O).
      2
       Id. § 161.001(b)(2).
     3
       See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); In the Interest of L.D.T., 161
S.W.3d 728, 731 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2005, no pet.).
     4
       Cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).
                                         2
      Based on the above, the trial court’s judgment is

      AFFIRMED.

                                                   _________________________
                                                        HOLLIS HORTON
                                                             Justice

Submitted on February 8, 2022
Opinion Delivered March 17, 2022

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

                                         3