in the Interest of C. M. S. and D. R. F. II

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: May 27, 2021
• Docket: 09-21-00009-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont ____________________ NO. 09-21-00009-CV ____________________ IN THE INTEREST OF C.M.S. AND D.R.F. II _______________________________________________________ ______________

On Appeal from the County Court at Law Polk County, Texas Trial Cause No. CIV32663 ________________________________________________________ _____________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

V.S. appeals from an order terminating her parental rights to her children,

C.M.S and D.R.F. II. 1, 2 The trial court found by clear and convincing evidence,

statutory grounds exist for termination of V.S.’s parental rights, and termination of

her rights would be in the children’s best interest. See Tex. Fam. Code. Ann. §

161.001(b)(1)(E), (O). Appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel submitted a

brief in which counsel contends there are no meritorious grounds to be advanced on

appeal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967); In re L.D.T., 161 S.W.3d

1 To protect the identity of the minors, we use initials for the children and their mother. See Tex. R. App. P. 9.8(b)(2). 2 C.M.S. and D.R.F. II have different fathers. Neither father appealed. D.R.F. II’s father signed an affidavit of voluntary relinquishment. C.M.S.’s father testified that he wanted to relinquish his rights but did not sign an affidavit and does not appeal. 1 728, 731 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2005, no pet.). The brief provides counsel’s

professional evaluation of the record. Counsel certified Appellant was served with a

copy of the Anders brief filed on her behalf. This Court notified Appellant of her

right to file a pro se response, as well as the deadline for filing the response. This

Court did not receive a pro se response from Appellant. We have independently

reviewed the appellate record and counsel’s brief, and we agree any appeal would

be frivolous. We find no arguable error requiring us to appoint new counsel to re-

brief this appeal. Cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).

Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s order terminating V.S.’s parental

rights. In the event V.S. decides to pursue an appeal to the Supreme Court of Texas,

counsel’s obligations to V.S. can be met “by filing a petition for review that satisfies

the standards for an Anders brief.” In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 28 (Tex. 2016). See

Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 107.016 (3)(B).

AFFIRMED. _________________________ CHARLES KREGER Justice

Submitted on April 21, 2021 Opinion Delivered May 27, 2021

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