in the Interest of R.J.

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: September 8, 2022
• Docket: 09-22-00094-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-22-00094-CV __________________

IN THE INTEREST OF R.J.

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 317th District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. C-239,525 __________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

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

Father’s parent-child relationship with R.J., whom we will call Casey,

their fifteen-month-old child.1 As to Mother, the trial court found clear

and convincing evidence established that Mother:

(1) knowingly placed or knowingly allowed the children to remain in conditions or surroundings that endangered the physical or

1To protect the identities of Mother, Father, and their children, we use pseudonyms in the opinion in place of names. See Tex. R. App. P. 9.8(a), (b).

1 emotional well-being of the children, pursuant to § 161.001(b)(1)(D), Texas Family Code; (2) engaged in conduct or knowingly placed the children with persons who engaged in conduct which endangers the physical or emotional well-being of the children, pursuant to § 161.001(b)(1)(E), Texas Family Code; (3) failed to comply with the provisions of a court order establishing the actions Mother had to follow to have her children returned after they were placed with the Department of Family and Protective Services for not less than nine months following their removal for abuse or neglect, pursuant to § 161.001(b)(1)(O), Texas Family Code; and (4) used a controlled substance, as defined by Chapter 481, Health and Safety Code, in a manner that endangered the health or safety of the child, and then failed to complete a court-ordered substance abuse treatment program or continued to abuse a controlled substance in a manner that endangered the health or safety of her children. 2

The trial court also found that terminating Mother’s and Father’s parent-

child relationship with Casey is in Casey’s best interest. After the trial

court signed the Final Order of Termination, Mother filed her notice of

appeal. Father, however, did not. 3

On appeal, Mother’s court-appointed attorney filed a brief. The

brief provides the Court with a professional evaluation of the record.

2See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), (O), (P). 3The trial court found that Father’s rights should be terminated on five grounds under the Family Code. We need not mention the grounds on which the trial court terminated Father’s rights, however, since Father did not appeal. 2 According to Mother’s brief, no arguable grounds exist to support

Mother’s appeal.4 Mother’s attorney also provided the Court with a letter,

which he sent to Mother, in which the attorney represents that he

provided Mother with a copy of the brief that was filed in her appeal.

After receiving the Anders brief, the Clerk of the Ninth Court of

Appeals notified Mother that she had until June 27, 2022, to file a pro se

response with the Court. Yet the appellate record shows that Mother,

after being notified of her right to respond, did not file a response after

receiving the notice.

We have independently reviewed the appellate record. Based on

that review, we find Mother’s appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we need

not appoint another attorney to re-brief the appeal. 5

Accordingly, the trial court’s judgment is

AFFIRMED.

_________________________ HOLLIS HORTON Justice Submitted on July 26, 2022 Opinion Delivered September 8, 2022 Before Golemon, C.J., Horton and Johnson, JJ.

4See 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.). 5Cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).