Court Opinion

ID: 9406201
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-30 09:10:45.788033+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:27.838952
License: Public Domain

IN THE
                          TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

                                 No. 10-23-00038-CV

                     IN THE INTEREST OF K.G., A CHILD

                            From the 12th District Court
                              Madison County, Texas
                              Trial Court No. 21-17168

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

      C.G. appeals from the trial court's order terminating his parental rights to K.G.

After hearing all the evidence, the trial court found by clear and convincing evidence that

C.G. (1) knowingly placed or allowed the child to remain in conditions or surroundings

which endangered the child, (2) engaged in conduct or knowingly placed the child with

persons who engaged in conduct which endangered the child, and (3) failed to comply

with the provisions of a court order that established the actions necessary for C.G. to

obtain the return of the child. TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), (O). The trial

court further found by clear and convincing evidence that termination was in the best
interest of the child. TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 161.001(b)(2). We affirm the trial court's

order terminating C.G.'s parental rights.

         C.G.'s counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California asserting that he has

conducted a review of the record and found no meritorious grounds for appeal. See

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). The procedures set forth in Anders v. California

are applicable to appeals of orders terminating parental rights. See In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d

24, 27 & n.10 (Tex. 2016) (per curiam).

         The brief meets the requirements of Anders by presenting a professional evaluation

of the record and demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced on

appeal. Additionally, C.G.'s counsel advised him that he had filed the brief pursuant to

Anders and that C.G. had the right to review the record and file a pro se response on his

own behalf. This court advised C.G. of his right to review the record and gave him time

to file a response. We received no pro se response.

         Due process requires application of the clear and convincing standard of proof in

cases involving involuntary termination of parental rights. In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256, 263

(Tex. 2002). Clear and convincing evidence is that measure or degree of proof which will

produce in the mind of the trier of fact a firm belief or conviction as to the truth of the

allegations sought to be established. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 101.007; In re C.H., 89

S.W.3d 17, 25-26 (Tex. 2002).

In the Interest of K.G., a Child v.                                                   Page 2
         The Texas Family Code permits a court to order termination of parental rights if

the petitioner establishes one or more acts or omissions enumerated under subsection (1)

of the statute and also proves that termination of the parent-child relationship is in the

best interest of the child. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 161.001(b)(1), (2). We agree with

counsel's evaluation that there is clear and convincing evidence to support termination

under Section 161.001(b)(1).

         Notwithstanding the sufficiency of the evidence to support termination under

Section 161.001(b)(1), we must also find clear and convincing evidence that termination

of the parent-child relationship was in the child's best interest. See id. § 161.001(b)(2).

Evidence that proves one or more statutory grounds for termination may also constitute

evidence illustrating that termination is in the child's best interest. See In re C.H., 89

S.W.3d at 28. There is a long-standing non-exhaustive list of factors for a court to consider

in deciding the best interest of a child in a termination case. See Holley v. Adams, 544

S.W.2d 367, 371-72 (Tex. 1976). We agree with counsel's evaluation that there is clear and

convincing evidence for the trial court to have determined that termination of C.G.'s

parental rights was in the best interest of K.G.

         Upon receiving a "frivolous appeal" brief, this Court must conduct a full

examination of all proceedings to determine whether the case is wholly frivolous. See

Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988). After our review of the entire record and counsel's

brief, we agree with counsel that there are no plausible grounds for appeal, and the

In the Interest of K.G., a Child v.                                                    Page 3
appeal is frivolous and without merit. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's order

terminating C.G.'s parental rights.

                                             STEVE SMITH
                                             Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray
       Justice Johnson
       Justice Smith
Affirmed
Opinion delivered and filed June 28, 2023
[CV06]

In the Interest of K.G., a Child v.                                             Page 4