in the Interest of M.T.

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: February 3, 2022
• Docket: 09-21-00248-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-21-00248-CV __________________

IN THE INTEREST OF M.T. __________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the County Court at Law Orange County, Texas Trial Cause No. C200519-D __________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Following a bench trial, the trial court terminated Mother’s and Father’s

parent-child relationship with their five-year-old child, M.T. 1 The judgment states

the trial court found, by clear and convincing evidence, that Mother engaged in

conduct that violated section 161.001(b)(1). 2 The trial court also found that

terminating Mother’s and Father’s parent-child relationship with M.T. is in M.T.’s

best interest.

1The order also terminated Father’s parental rights, but Father does not appeal. 2See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), (N), (O). 1 Mother filed a timely notice to appeal from the judgment. Father, however,

did not appeal. In the appeal, Mother’s court-appointed attorney filed a brief in which

she provides the Court with a professional evaluation of the record. According to

Mother’s brief, no arguable grounds exist supporting Mother’s appeal.3 Mother’s

attorney represents she sent Mother a copy of the brief she filed in the appeal. The

record also shows the Clerk notified Mother she had the right to file a pro se response

in her appeal. That said, Mother did not file a response.

We have independently reviewed the record and based on our review we find

that Mother’s appeal is frivolous. For that reason, we need not appoint another

attorney to re-brief the appeal.4

Accordingly, the trial court’s judgment is

AFFIRMED.

_________________________ HOLLIS HORTON Justice

Submitted on December 13, 2021 Opinion Delivered February 3, 2022

Before Kreger, Horton and Johnson, JJ.

3SeeAnders 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.). 4Cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).