in the Interest of B.J.B

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: March 3, 2022
• Docket: 09-21-00355-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-21-00355-CV __________________

IN THE INTEREST OF B.J.B.

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the County Court at Law Orange County, Texas Trial Cause No. C190751-D __________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Following a final bench trial, the trial court terminated Mother’s and Father’s

parent-child relationship with their six-year-old child, B.J.B.1 The judgment states

the trial court found, by clear and convincing evidence, that Mother and Father

engaged in conduct that violated section 161.001(b)(1).2 The trial court also found

that terminating Mother’s and Father’s parent-child relationship with B.J.B. is in

B.J.B.’s best interest.

1 The order also terminated Father’s parental rights, but Father does not appeal. 2 See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), (N), (O). 1 Mother filed a timely notice of appeal from the judgment. Father, however,

did not. In Mother’s appeal, Mother’s court-appointed attorney filed a brief. The

brief filed in Mother’s appeal provides the Court with a professional evaluation of

the record. According to the brief, no arguable grounds exist to support Mother’s

appeal.3 Mother’s attorney certified she sent Mother a copy of the brief, and upon

receiving the brief, the Clerk of the Ninth Court of Appeals notified Mother she had

the right to file a pro se response. Even so, the appellate record shows Mother did

not respond.

We have independently reviewed the record. Based on that review, we find

Mother’s appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we need not appoint another attorney to

re-brief the appeal.4

Based on the above, the trial court’s judgment is

AFFIRMED.

_________________________ HOLLIS HORTON Justice

Submitted on February 22, 2022 Opinion Delivered March 3, 2022

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

3 See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); In the Interest of L.D.T., 161 S.W.3d 728, 731 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2005, no pet.). 4 Cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). 2