In the Interest of C.D. and M.D. v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: July 13, 2023
• Docket: 09-23-00088-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-23-00088-CV __________________

IN THE INTEREST OF C.D. AND M.D.

________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1 Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause No. 21-08-11962-CV __________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Mother appeals from an order terminating her parental rights to her one-year-

old twins, C.D. and M.D. 1 The trial court found, by clear and convincing evidence,

that Mother had executed a voluntary affidavit of relinquishment of her parental

rights to the children, and that termination of her parental rights would be in the

children’s best interest. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(b)(1)(K), (2).

1 To protect the identity of the children, we use pseudonyms to refer to the children and the parents. See Tex. R. App. P. 9.8(b)(2). The trial court’s Order of Termination also terminated the children’s father’s parental rights, but the father is not a party to this appeal. 1 Mother’s appointed attorney submitted a brief in which he contends that there

are no meritorious issues for appeal and that the appeal is frivolous. See Anders v.

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

Beaumont 2005, no pet.) (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 he gave Mother a copy of the Anders brief he

filed, notified Mother of her right to file a pro se brief, and notified Mother of how

to access the appellate record. The Court notified Mother of her right to file a pro se

response and of the deadline for doing so. Mother did not file a response with the

Court.

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

Mother’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, 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

reversible error but found none, the court of appeals met the requirements of Texas

2 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 counsel to re-brief the appeal. Cf.

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

Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s order terminating Mother’s parental

rights.2

AFFIRMED.

_________________________ LEANNE JOHNSON Justice

Submitted on June 26, 2023 Opinion Delivered July 13, 2023

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

2 We note that if Appellant decides to pursue review by the Supreme Court of Texas, counsel may satisfy his obligations to Appellant “by filing a petition for review that satisfies the standards for an Anders brief.” In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27-28 (Tex. 2016). 3