in the Interest of G.S.G. and Z.M.G.
This text of in the Interest of G.S.G. and Z.M.G. (in the Interest of G.S.G. and Z.M.G.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
__________________
NO. 09-22-00067-CV __________________
IN THE INTEREST OF G.S.G. AND Z.M.G.
__________________________________________________________________
On Appeal from the County Court at Law Orange County, Texas Trial Cause No. C200744-D __________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Following a bench trial, the trial court terminated Mother’s and
Father’s parent-child relationships with their children, nine-year-old
G.S.G. (Gina) and six-year-old Z.M.G. (Zelda). 1 As to Mother, the trial
court found by clear and convincing evidence that Mother:
(1) knowingly placed or knowingly allowed the children to remain in conditions or surroundings that endangered the physical or emotional well-being of the children, pursuant to § 161.001(b)(1)(D), Texas Family Code;
1To protect the identities of Mother, Father, and their children, we use pseudonyms in the opinion in place of names. See Tex. R. App. P. 9.8(a), (b). 1 (2) engaged in conduct or knowingly placed the children with persons who engaged in conduct which endangered the physical or emotional well-being of the children, pursuant to § 161.001(b)(1)(E), Texas Family Code; (3) constructively abandoned the children, who have been in the permanent or temporary managing conservatorship of the Department of Family and Protective Services for not less than six months along with the additional findings required in section 161.001(b)(1)(N) of the Texas Family Code; (4) failed to comply with the provisions of a court order establishing the actions Mother had to follow to have her children returned after they were placed with the Department of Family and Protective Services for not less than nine months following their removal for abuse or neglect, pursuant to § 161.00(b)(1)(O), Texas Family Code; and (5) used a controlled substance, as defined by Chapter 481, Health and Safety Code, in a manner that endangered the health or safety of the child, and then failed to complete a court-ordered substance abuse treatment program or complete a court- ordered substance abuse treatment program and continued to abuse a controlled substance in a manner that endangered the health or safety of her children. 2
As to Father, the trial court found that Father filed “an unrevoked
or irrevocable affidavit of relinquishment of parental rights as provided
by Chapter 161, Texas Family Code[.]” Finally, the trial court found that
terminating Mother’s and Father’s parent-child relationships with Gina
and Zelda is in their best interest. After the trial court signed the order
terminating Mother’s and Father’s parental rights, Mother appealed.
Father, however, did not.
2See Tex. Fam. Code. Ann. § 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), (N), (O), (P). 2 On appeal, Mother’s court-appointed attorney filed a brief. The
brief provides the Court with a professional evaluation of the record.
According to Mother’s brief, no arguable grounds exist to support
Mother’s appeal. 3 Mother’s attorney certified that he sent Mother a copy
of the brief. Upon receiving the attorney’s brief, the Clerk of the Ninth
Court of Appeals notified Mother she had until May 20, 2022, to file a pro
se response to the brief with the Court. But the appellate record shows
that Mother failed to respond.
We have independently reviewed the record. Based on our review,
we find Mother’s appeal to be frivolous. Accordingly, we need not appoint
another attorney to re-brief the appeal. 4
For the above reasons, the trial court’s judgment is
AFFIRMED.
_________________________ HOLLIS HORTON Justice
Submitted on June 15, 2022 Opinion Delivered July 14, 2022
Before Golemon, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.
3See 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.). 4Cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
in the Interest of G.S.G. and Z.M.G., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-interest-of-gsg-and-zmg-texapp-2022.