In the Interest of K.H., I.H., Z.H., and L.H. v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: October 19, 2023
• Docket: 09-23-00131-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-23-00131-CV __________________

IN THE INTEREST OF K.H., I.H., Z.H., AND L.H.

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 279th District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. F-241,521 __________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant J.H. appeals from an order terminating her parental rights to her

four children—nine-year-old K.H., seven-year-old I.H., two-year-old Z.H., and ten-

month-old L.H. 1 The trial court found, by clear and convincing evidence, that

statutory grounds exist for termination of J.H.’s parental rights and that termination

of her parental rights would be in the children’s best interests. See Tex. Fam. Code

Ann. § 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), (N), (O), (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 fathers’ parental rights, but the fathers are not parties to this appeal. 1 J.H.’s appointed attorney submitted a brief in which she 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 she gave J.H. a copy of the Anders brief she

filed, notified J.H. of her right to file a pro se brief, and notified J.H. of how to access

the appellate record. This Court notified J.H. of her right to file a pro se response

and of the deadline for doing so. J.H. did not file a response with the Court.

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

J.H.’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 Rule of Appellate

Procedure 47.1.”); In re K.R.C., 346 S.W.3d at 619. Therefore, we find it

2 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 J.H.’s parental

rights.2

AFFIRMED.

LEANNE JOHNSON Justice

Submitted on October 18, 2023 Opinion Delivered October 19, 2023

Before Horton, Johnson and Wright, JJ.

We note that if Appellant decides to pursue review by the Supreme Court of 2

Texas, counsel may satisfy her 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