Court Opinion

ID: 9362885
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-13 08:20:37.722889+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:26.439835
License: Public Domain

In The

                                 Court of Appeals

                     Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

                                __________________

                                NO. 09-22-00245-CV
                                __________________

                           IN THE INTEREST OF N.E.

__________________________________________________________________

                On Appeal from the 279th District Court
                       Jefferson County, Texas
                      Trial Cause No. F-234,867
__________________________________________________________________

                           MEMORANDUM OPINION

      Mother appeals from an order terminating her parental rights to her four-year-

old son, N.E.1 The trial court found, by clear and convincing evidence, that statutory

grounds exist for termination of Mother’s parental rights and that termination of her

parental rights would be in the best interest of the child.2 See Tex. Fam. Code Ann.

§ 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), (F), (K), (N), (O), (P), (2).

      1
         To protect the identity of the child, we use pseudonyms to refer to the
children and the parents. See Tex. R. App. P. 9.8(b)(2).
       2
         The trial court had previously terminated the parental rights of the unknown
father of N.E.
                                           1
         Mother’s appointed attorney submitted a brief in which she contends that there

are no meritorious issues for appeal and that the appeal is frivolous. See Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); In re L.D.T., 161 S.W.3d 728, 730-31 (Tex. App.—

Beaumont 2005, no pet.) (Anders procedures apply in parental-rights termination

cases). The brief presents the attorney’s professional evaluation of the record and

explains why no arguable grounds exist to overturn the trial court’s judgment. The

attorney represented to the Court that she gave Mother a copy of the Anders brief

she filed, notified Mother of her right to file a pro se brief, and provided Mother a

copy of the appellate record. The Court notified Mother of her right to file a pro se

response and of the deadline for doing so. Mother did not file a response with the

Court.

         We have independently evaluated the appellate record and the brief filed by

Mother’s court-appointed attorney. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988)

(citing Anders, 386 U.S. at 744); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex.

Crim. App. 2005); In re K.R.C., 346 S.W.3d 618, 619 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2009,

no pet.). Based on our review, we have found nothing that would arguably support

an appeal and we agree that the appeal is frivolous and lacks merit. See Bledsoe, 178

S.W.3d at 827-28 (“Due to the nature of Anders briefs, by indicating in the opinion

that it considered the issues raised in the briefs and reviewed the record for reversible

error but found none, the court of appeals met the requirements of Texas Rule of

                                            2
Appellate Procedure 47.1.”); In re K.R.C., 346 S.W.3d at 619. Therefore, we find it

unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief the appeal. Cf. Stafford

v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).

      We affirm the trial court’s order terminating Mother’s parental rights. We

deny the motion to withdraw filed by Mother’s court-appointed appellate attorney

because the right to counsel in suits seeking the termination of parental rights

extends through the exhaustion or waiver of all appeals. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann.

§ 107.016(2)(B); In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 (Tex. 2016). Accordingly, the

obligation of Mother’s counsel to Mother has not been discharged. See In re P.M.,

520 S.W.3d at 27. Should Mother decide to pursue an appeal to the Supreme Court

of Texas, her counsel’s obligation can be met “by filing a petition for review that

satisfies the standards for an Anders brief.” See id. at 27-28.

      AFFIRMED.

                                                      _________________________
                                                          LEANNE JOHNSON
                                                                Justice

Submitted on December 28, 2022
Opinion Delivered January 12, 2023

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

                                           3