Braynon Johnson and Catherine Johnson v. Department of Family and Protective Services

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: July 13, 2006
• Docket: 01-05-00334-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

Opinion issued July 13, 2006

In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

---

NO. 01–05–00334–CV

__________

BRAYNON JOHNSON AND CATHERINE JOHNSON, Appellants

V.

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND PROTECTIVE SERVICES, Appellee

---

On Appeal from the 306th District Court

Galveston County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 04CP0028

---

MEMORANDUM OPINION ON REHEARING

          This is an accelerated appeal from an order terminating the parental rights of appellants, Braynon Johnson and Catherine Johnson, to their minor child, D.J. Catherine’s counsel has filed an Anders brief and has informed this Court that he has made a professional evaluation of the record and that, after his evaluation, he has concluded that there is no reversible error in appellant’s case and no ground that can arguably support any appeal.

          We affirm.

Background

          The Department of Family and Protective Services (“DFPS”) filed a petition to terminate Braynon’s and Catherine’s parental rights concerning their child D.J. Following a bench trial, the trial court signed a decree terminating their parental rights to the child. The decree recited that the trial court found, by clear and convincing evidence, that termination of the parental relationship between Braynon and Catherine and the child was in the child’s best interest. The decree further stated that the trial court found, by clear and convincing evidence, that Braynon and Catherine “ha[d] engaged in conduct or knowingly placed the child with persons who engaged in conduct which endangers the physical or emotional well-being of the child.”

          Catherine’s counsel has affirmed to this Court, in his brief and in a separate filing, that he delivered a copy of the brief to Catherine at her last known address and that he has advised Catherine of her right to obtain the record and transcript in this case and file a pro se response. See Sowels v. State, 45 S.W.3d 690, 693 (Tex. App.—Waco 2001, no pet.). Catherine has not filed a pro se response or a motion requesting an extension of time to file a response with this Court.

          We have reviewed counsel’s brief and hold that counsel has met the briefing requirements set forth in Anders: the brief sets forth a professional evaluation of the record and states why there are no arguable issues to assert on appeal. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400. We have reviewed the entire record and concur with counsel’s evaluation concerning the sufficiency of the evidence in support of these findings and also conclude that there are no arguable grounds for appeal. We affirm the trial court’s decree.

          Counsel has also filed a motion to withdraw as counsel for Catherine. We grant the motion to withdraw. However, counsel still has a duty to inform Catherine of the result of this appeal and also to inform her that she may, on her own, pursue a petition for review in the Supreme Court of Texas. See In re K.D., 127 S.W.3d 66, 68 n.3 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, no pet.).

Conclusion

          We affirm the judgment of the trial court. We have reviewed the entire record, and we hold that there are no arguable grounds for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the order of the trial court, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

                                                                        Evelyn V. Keyes

                                                                        Justice

Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Alcala, and Bland.