in the Interest of R.D.S.

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: October 2, 2014
• Docket: 09-14-00169-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont _________________

NO. 09-14-00169-CV _________________

IN THE INTEREST OF R.D.S. __________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 418th District Court Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause No. 12-05-05471 CV __________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

A.N.A. appeals from an order terminating her parental rights to her minor

child, R.D.S. III. The trial court found, by clear and convincing evidence, that

statutory grounds existed for the termination of A.N.A.’s parental rights and that

termination of A.N.A.’s parental rights would be in the best interest of the child.

See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(1)(K), (2) (West 2014).

A.N.A.’s court-appointed appellate counsel submitted a brief in which

counsel contends that there are no arguable grounds to be advanced on 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

1 evaluation of the record. Counsel served A.N.A. with a copy of the Anders brief

filed on her behalf. Counsel moved to withdraw and requested an extension of

time for appellant to file a pro se brief. On August 5, 2014, we granted A.N.S.

twenty days to file a pro se brief. No pro se brief was received.

We have independently reviewed the record and counsel’s brief, and we

agree that any appeal would be frivolous. We conclude that no arguable grounds

for appeal exist, and we therefore affirm the judgment of the trial court. We grant

counsel’s motion to withdraw.

AFFIRMED.

_____________________________ CHARLES KREGER Justice

Submitted on September 16, 2014 Opinion Delivered October 2, 2014

Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Johnson, JJ.