in the Interest of S. E. and B. E., Children

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: December 16, 2020
• Docket: 12-20-00206-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

NO. 12-20-00206-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

IN THE INTEREST OF § APPEAL FROM THE

S.E. AND B.E., § COUNTY COURT AT LAW

CHILDREN § CHEROKEE COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM J.E. and J.B. appeal the termination of their parental rights. Their counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967), and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). We affirm.

BACKGROUND J.E. and J.B. are the parents of S.E. and B.E. On June 26, 2019, the Department of Family and Protective Services (the Department) filed an original petition for protection of the children, for conservatorship, and for termination of J.E.’s and J.B.’s parental rights. The Department was appointed temporary managing conservator of the children, and the parents were allowed limited access to, and possession of, the children. Due to concerns over COVID-19, a bench trial was held via Zoom. At the conclusion of the trial on the merits, the trial court found, by clear and convincing evidence, that J.E. and J.B. had each engaged in one or more of the acts or omissions necessary to support termination of their respective parental rights under subsections (N) and (O) of Texas Family Code Section 161.001(b)(1). The trial court also found that termination of the parent-child relationships between J.E. and J.B. and the children was in the children’s best interest. Based on these findings, the trial court ordered that the parent-child relationships between J.E. and J.B. and the children be terminated. This appeal followed. ANALYSIS PURSUANT TO ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA J.E.’s and J.B.’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders, stating that he has diligently reviewed the appellate record and is of the opinion that the record reflects no reversible error and that there is no error upon which an appeal can be predicated. This Court has previously held that Anders procedures apply in parental rights termination cases when the Department has moved for termination. See In re K.S.M., 61 S.W.3d 632, 634 (Tex. App.–Tyler 2001, no pet.). In compliance with Anders, counsel’s brief presents a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no reversible grounds on appeal and referencing any grounds that might arguably support the appeal. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; Mays v. State, 904 S.W.2d 920, 922–23 (Tex. App.–Fort Worth 1995, no pet.). As a reviewing court, we must conduct an independent evaluation of the record to determine whether counsel is correct in determining that the appeal is frivolous. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Mays, 904 S.W.2d at 923. We have carefully reviewed the appellate record and counsel’s brief. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. 1 See Taylor v. Tex. Dep’t of Protective & Regulatory Servs., 160 S.W.3d 641, 646–47 (Tex. App.–Austin 2005, pet. denied).

DISPOSITION We agree with J.E.’s and J.B.’s counsel that the appeal is wholly frivolous. 2 Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2. Opinion delivered December 16, 2020. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

1 Counsel for J.B. and J.E. certified that he provided J.E. and J.B. with a copy of the brief and informed them that they had the right to file their own brief, and took concrete measures to facilitate review of the record. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In the matter of C. F., No. 03-18-00008-CV, 2018 WL 2750007, at *1 (Tex. App.—Austin June 8, 2018, no pet.). J.E. and J.B. were given the time to file their own briefs, but the time for filing such briefs has expired and we have received no pro se briefs. 2 J.E.’s and J.B.’s counsel recognizes that he may not withdraw and that his duty to J.E. and J.B. does not end with this appeal. See In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27-28 (Tex. 2016). COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

DECEMBER 16, 2020

IN THE INTEREST OF S. E. AND B. E., CHILDREN

Appeal from the County Court at Law of Cherokee County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. FM1900118)

THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and brief filed herein, and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that there was no error in the judgment. It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the judgment of the court below be in all things affirmed, and that this decision be certified to the court below for observance. By per curiam opinion. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.