Court Opinion

ID: 9380091
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-17 07:09:21.3261+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:03.457835
License: Public Domain

In The

                                 Court of Appeals

                     Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

                               __________________

                               NO. 09-22-00404-CV
                               __________________

                   IN THE INTEREST OF C.D.M.
__________________________________________________________________

                On Appeal from the 1st District Court
                       Jasper County, Texas
                       Trial Cause No. 39206
__________________________________________________________________

                           MEMORANDUM OPINION

       Father appeals from an order terminating his parental rights to his minor

child, C.D.M. 1 The trial court found, by clear and convincing evidence, that statutory

grounds exist for termination of Father’s parental rights and that termination of his

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

161.001(b)(1)(K), (2).

      Father’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.

      1To 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).
                                           1
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); In re L.D.T., 161 S.W.3d 728, 730–31 (Tex.

App.—Beaumont 2005, no pet.) (noting 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 Father a copy of the

Anders brief she filed, notified Father of his right to file a pro se brief, and provided

Father a copy of the appellate record. The Court notified Father of his right to file a

pro se response and the deadline for doing so. Father did not file a response with the

Court.

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

Father’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 of the record, 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 arguable error but found none, the court of appeals met the

requirements of Texas Rule of 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

                                           2
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 Father’s parental rights. Should

Father decide to pursue an appeal to the Supreme Court of Texas, his counsel’s

obligation can be met “by filing a petition for review that satisfies the standards for

an Anders brief.” See In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27–28 (Tex. 2016) (citations

omitted).

      AFFIRMED.

                                                     _________________________
                                                        W. SCOTT GOLEMON
                                                            Chief Justice

Submitted on March 14, 2023
Opinion Delivered March 16, 2023

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

                                          3