in the Interest of I.E.

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: November 19, 2020
• Docket: 09-20-00181-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-20-00181-CV __________________

IN THE INTEREST OF I.E.

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 279th District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. C-237,025 __________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

S.E. (Father) appeals from an order terminating his parental rights to his minor

child, I.E. For a trial court to terminate a parent’s rights to his children, the State

must prove by clear and convincing evidence (1) that the parent committed an act

prohibited under section 161.001(1) of the Texas Family Code and (2) that

terminating the parent’s rights is in the children’s best interest. See Tex. Fam. Code

Ann. § 161.001(b)(1)-(2). Here, the parties tried the case to the bench, and the trial

court found clear and convincing evidence supported the Department of Family and

Protective Service’s allegations claiming Father’s rights should be terminated based

1 on several grounds in section 161. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(b)(1)(D),

(E), (O), (P). The trial court also found that terminating Father’s rights is in I.E.’s

best interest. See id. § 161.001(b)(2).

Father then appealed from the trial court’s order terminating his parental rights

to I.E. Subsequently, Father’s court-appointed appellate counsel submitted a brief in

which counsel contends that no arguable grounds can be advanced to support

Father’s appeal. 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.). The brief

provides counsel’s professional evaluation of the record. Counsel served Father with

a copy of the Anders brief filed on his behalf. After Father’s counsel filed the Anders

brief, the Court notified Father of his right to file a pro se response, and the deadline

to do so. Father did not respond to the Court’s notice.

We have independently reviewed the appellate record. Based on the record

before us, we find any appeal would be frivolous as there is no arguable error that

would require the Court to have another attorney appointed to re-brief Father’s

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

reasons, we affirm the trial court’s order terminating Father’s parental rights.

AFFIRMED.

_________________________ HOLLIS HORTON Justice

2 Submitted on October 19, 2020 Opinion Delivered November 19, 2020

Before Kreger, Horton and Johnson, JJ.