In the Interest of L.J.B., a Child v. the State of Texas

• Court: Texas Court of Appeals, 10th District (Waco)
• Decided: January 8, 2026
• Docket: 10-25-00325-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

Court of Appeals Tenth Appellate District of Texas

10-25-00325-CV

In the Interest of L.J.B., a Child

On appeal from the County Court at Law of Bosque County, Texas Judge Luke Giesecke, presiding Trial Court Cause No. CV24-077

JUSTICE SMITH delivered the opinion of the Court.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Following a jury trial, the trial court rendered an order terminating

Mother’s parental rights to L.J.B. pursuant to sections 161.001(b)(1)(D),

(b)(1)(E), (b)(1)(N), and (b)(1)(P) of the Family Code, and finding that

termination was in the child’s best interest.1 See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN.

§§ 161.001(b)(1)(D), (b)(1)(E), (b)(1)(N), (b)(1)(P), (b)(2). Mother timely

appealed from the termination order. Mother’s attorney has now filed an

Anders brief asserting that she diligently reviewed the appellate record and

that the appeal is frivolous. See generally Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738,

87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967); In re A.S., 653 S.W.3d 298 (Tex. App.—

1 L.J.B.’s father voluntarily relinquished his parental rights prior to trial. He does not appeal. Waco 2022, no pet.). Though we notified Mother of her right to file a pro se

response, Mother has failed to do so.

Counsel’s brief evidences a professional evaluation of the record

demonstrating why there exists no reversible error in the trial court’s

termination order, and we conclude that counsel performed the duties required

of appointed counsel upon filing an Anders brief. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744;

In re A.S., 653 S.W.3d at 299-300; see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403,

406-08 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).

As the reviewing appellate court, it is our duty upon receiving an Anders

brief to independently examine the record to determine whether the appeal is

frivolous. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988). Arguments are frivolous

when they “cannot conceivably persuade the court.” McCoy v. Court of Appeals,

486 U.S. 429, 436 (1988). We have reviewed the entire record and counsel’s

brief, and we have determined that the appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we

affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Conclusion

Having found that Mother’s appeal is frivolous, we affirm the judgment

of the trial court.

STEVE SMITH

In the Interest of L.J.B., a Child Page 2 Justice

OPINION DELIVERED and FILED: January 8, 2026 Before Chief Justice Johnson, Justice Smith, and Justice Harris Affirmed CV06

In the Interest of L.J.B., a Child Page 3