in the Interest of M.E.

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: January 12, 2023
• Docket: 09-22-00242-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

________________

NO. 09-22-00242-CV ________________

IN THE INTEREST OF M.E.

________________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 279th District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. F-237,814 ________________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her child,

M.E. 1 See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001. The trial court found by clear and

convincing evidence that statutory grounds exist for termination and that termination

is in the best interest of the child. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E),

(F), (K), (N), (O), (P), (2).

1 To protect the identity of the minor, we use initials to refer to the child. See Tex. R. App. P. 9.8(b)(2). 1 Appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel submitted a brief in which

counsel contends there are no meritorious issues for appeal. See 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.). The brief provides counsel’s professional evaluation of the

record, discusses the evidence at trial and the applicable legal standard, the trial

court’s ruling, and why the trial court’s ruling is supported by sufficient evidence.

Counsel concludes there are no arguable grounds to be advanced on appeal. Counsel

certified that Appellant was served with a copy of the Anders brief. 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 reviewed the entire record and counsel’s brief, and

we conclude that there are no arguable grounds for review, that no reversible error

exists, and that Appellant’s appeal is frivolous. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744

(emphasizing that the reviewing court—and not counsel—determines, after full

examination of proceedings, whether the appeal is wholly frivolous). As a result, we

affirm the trial court’s termination of Appellant’s parental rights. We further find no

arguable error requiring us to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief this

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

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

rights.2

AFFIRMED.

________________________________ LEANNE JOHNSON Justice

Submitted on December 28, 2022 Opinion Delivered January 12, 2023

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

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