Court Opinion

ID: 4042367
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-09-28 23:04:27.42274+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:28:38.534512
License: Public Domain

In The

                                 Court of Appeals
                     Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
                            ____________________
                               NO. 09-15-00185-CV
                            ____________________

                  IN THE INTEREST OF T.V., P.V., and K.V.

_______________________________________________________              ______________

                    On Appeal from the County Court at Law
                              Polk County, Texas
                          Trial Cause No. PC05868
________________________________________________________              _____________

                           MEMORANDUM OPINION

      This is a parental-rights termination case. Following a bench trial, the trial

court signed a judgment terminating the parental rights of C.C. (Mother) and E.V.

(Father) to their children, T.V., P.V., and K.V. 1 Mother has appealed from the trial

court’s final judgment.

      The judgment reflects that the trial court found, by clear and convincing

evidence, that Mother’s parental rights should be terminated because she failed to

      1
          To protect the identity of the parties, they have been identified by their
initials. See Tex. R. App. P. 9.8. Father has not appealed from the trial court’s final
judgment.
                                          1
comply with a court order that established the actions necessary to obtain the return

of her children. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(1)(O) (West 2014). The trial

court also found that terminating Mother’s parent-child relationships with her

children was in their best interest. Id. § 161.001(2) (West 2014).

      In this appeal, Mother’s court-appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw,

along with an Anders brief. In these, Mother’s counsel argues that no issues of

arguable merit are available to support an appeal. See Anders v. California, 386
U.S. 738 (1967); In re L.D.T., 161 S.W.3d 728, 731 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2005,

no pet.). In the brief, counsel provides the court with counsel’s professional

evaluation of the record. In the motion, Mother’s counsel certified that he sent

Mother a copy of the Anders brief and his motion to withdraw, and that he

informed Mother of her right to review the records and to file a pro se response.

See In re K.D., 127 S.W.3d 66, 67 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, no pet.).

Mother did not file a response.

      We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the trial court record. We conclude

that no arguable grounds for appeal exist. We also conclude that it is not necessary

to appoint another attorney to rebrief the appeal. Cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d
2
503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court’s final judgment

terminating Mother’s parental rights, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. 2

      AFFIRMED.

                                                   _________________________
                                                        HOLLIS HORTON
                                                             Justice

Submitted on July 28, 2015
Opinion Delivered September 24, 2015

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

      2
         In connection with withdrawing from the case, Mother’s counsel shall
inform Mother of the result of this appeal and that Mother has the right to file a
petition for review with the Texas Supreme Court. See Tex. R. App. P. 53; In re
K.D., 127 S.W.3d 66, 68 n.3 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, no pet.).
                                        3