in the Interest of T v. P v. and K v.

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________

NO. 09-15-00185-CV

____________________

IN THE INTEREST OF T.V., P.V., and K.V.

_______________________________________________________ ______________

On Appeal from the County Court at Law Polk County, Texas

Trial Cause No. PC05868

________________________________________________________ _____________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This is a parental-rights termination case. Following a bench trial, the trial court signed a judgment terminating the parental rights of C.C. (Mother) and E.V. (Father) to their children, T.V., P.V., and K.V. 1 Mother has appealed from the trial court’s final judgment.

The judgment reflects that the trial court found, by clear and convincing evidence, that Mother’s parental rights should be terminated because she failed to

1 To protect the identity of the parties, they have been identified by their initials. See Tex. R. App. P. 9.8. Father has not appealed from the trial court’s final judgment.

2

comply with a court order that established the actions necessary to obtain the return of her children. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(1)(O) (West 2014). The trial court also found that terminating Mother’s parent-child relationships with her children was in their best interest. Id. § 161.001(2) (West 2014).

In this appeal, Mother’s court-appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw, along with an Anders brief. In these, Mother’s counsel argues that no issues of arguable merit are available to support an 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.). In the brief, counsel provides the court with counsel’s professional evaluation of the record. In the motion, Mother’s counsel certified that he sent Mother a copy of the Anders brief and his motion to withdraw, and that he informed Mother of her right to review the records and to file a pro se response. See In re K.D., 127 S.W.3d 66, 67 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, no pet.). Mother did not file a response.

We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the trial court record. We conclude that no arguable grounds for appeal exist. We also conclude that it is not necessary to appoint another attorney to rebrief the appeal. Cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d

3

503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court’s final judgment terminating Mother’s parental rights, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. 2 AFFIRMED.

_________________________

HOLLIS HORTON

Justice

Submitted on July 28, 2015 Opinion Delivered September 24, 2015

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

2 In connection with withdrawing from the case, Mother’s counsel shall inform Mother of the result of this appeal and that Mother has the right to file a petition for review with the Texas Supreme Court. See Tex. R. App. P. 53; In re K.D., 127 S.W.3d 66, 68 n.3 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, no pet.).