Court Opinion

ID: 4043556
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-09-28 23:22:22.668187+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:58:16.380580
License: Public Domain

In The

                                 Court of Appeals
                     Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
                            ____________________
                               NO. 09-15-00246-CV
                            ____________________

                           IN THE INTEREST OF T.H.
________________________________________________________________________

                On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 3
                        Montgomery County, Texas
                      Trial Cause No. 14-04-03973 CV
________________________________________________________________________

                           MEMORANDUM OPINION

      C.H. appeals from an order terminating her parental rights to her minor

child, T.H.1 The trial court found, by clear and convincing evidence, that statutory

grounds exist for termination of C.H.’s parental rights and that termination of

C.H.’s parental rights would be in the best interest of the child. See Tex. Fam.

Code Ann. § 161.001(1)(E), (N), (O), (2) (West 2014).

      C.H.’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.

      1
        To protect the identity of the minor, we use the initials for the child and the
child’s mother. See Tex. R. App. P. 9.8(b)(2).
                                          1
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 C.H. was served with a copy of the Anders brief

filed on her behalf. This Court notified C.H. 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. Compare

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

court’s order terminating C.H.’s parental rights, and we grant counsel’s motion to

withdraw.2

      AFFIRMED.

                                                     _________________________
                                                        LEANNE JOHNSON
                                                              Justice

Submitted on November 10, 2015
Opinion Delivered November 12, 2015

Before McKeithen, C.J., Horton and Johnson, JJ.
      2
        With respect to withdrawing from the case, counsel shall inform C.H. 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 the Interest of
K.D., 127 S.W.3d 66, 68 n.3 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, no pet.).
                                          2