in the Interest of S.W.

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedSeptember 23, 2021
Docket09-21-00145-CV
StatusPublished

This text of in the Interest of S.W. (in the Interest of S.W.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
in the Interest of S.W., (Tex. Ct. App. 2021).

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-21-00145-CV __________________

IN THE INTEREST OF S.W. __________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 279th District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. F-238,664 _________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Mother and Father appeal from an order terminating their parental rights to

their minor child, S.W. 1 The trial court found, by clear and convincing evidence, that

statutory grounds exist for termination of Mother’s and Father’s parental rights and

that termination of their parental rights would be in the best interest of S.W. See Tex.

Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(b)(1) (I), (2).

Mother’s and Father’s appointed appellate counsel submitted separate briefs

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

1 We refer to the appellants as “Mother” and “Father” and their child by her initials to protect their identities. See Tex. R. App. P. 9.8(b)(2). 1 appeal. See Anders 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.). The briefs provide

counsels’ professional evaluation of the record. Counsel served Mother and Father

with a copy of the Anders brief filed on their behalf. This Court notified Mother and

Father of their right to file a pro se response, as well as the deadline for doing so.

This Court did not receive a pro se response from either parent.

We have independently reviewed the appellate record and counsels’ briefs,

and we agree that any appeal would be frivolous. We find no arguable error requiring

us to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief this appeal. Cf. Stafford v. State,

813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court’s order

terminating Mother’s and Father’s parental rights.

AFFIRMED.

_________________________ W. SCOTT GOLEMON Chief Justice

Submitted on September 8, 2021 Opinion Delivered September 23, 2021

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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Anders v. California
386 U.S. 738 (Supreme Court, 1967)
Stafford v. State
813 S.W.2d 503 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1991)
in the Interest of L.D.T., C.R.E.T. and W.G.T.
161 S.W.3d 728 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2005)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
in the Interest of S.W., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-interest-of-sw-texapp-2021.