in the Interest of T.R.M., a Child

Opinion

IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-20-00254-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF T.R.M., A CHILD

From the 74th District Court McLennan County, Texas Trial Court No. 2019-4171-3

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Courtney B. appeals from an order that terminated the parent-child relationship

between her and her child, T.R.M. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 161.001. Courtney's

appointed counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California asserting that the

appeal presents no issues of arguable merit. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.

Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967). The procedures set forth in Anders are applicable to

appeals of orders terminating parental rights. In re E.L.Y., 69 S.W.3d 838, 841 (Tex. App.—

Waco 2002, order). Counsel advised Courtney that counsel had filed the brief pursuant

to Anders and that Courtney had the right to review the record and file a pro se response on her own behalf. Counsel also provided Courtney with a copy of the record. Courtney

did not file a response with this Court.

Counsel included a detailed recitation of the facts in the Anders brief and asserted

that counsel reviewed the trial court's jurisdiction and the record for any potentially

meritorious issues and determined there is no non-frivolous issue to raise in this appeal.

Counsel's brief discusses the sufficiency of the evidence relating to Section

161.001(b)(1)(E) which was one ground on which the termination was granted and the

best interest of the child. Counsel's brief evidences a professional evaluation of the record,

and we conclude that counsel performed the duties required of appointed counsel. See

Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406-408 (Tex. Crim. App.

2008).

Upon the filing of the Anders brief, as the reviewing appellate court, it is our duty

to independently examine the record to decide whether counsel is correct in determining

that an appeal is frivolous. See In the Interest of G.P., 503 S.W.3d 531, 536 (Tex. App.—

Waco 2016, pet. denied). Arguments are frivolous when they "cannot conceivably

persuade the court." McCoy v. Court of Appeals, 486 U.S. 429, 436, 108 S. Ct. 1895, 100 L.

Ed. 2d 440 (1988).

Having carefully reviewed the entire record and the Anders brief, we agree with

counsel that the appeal is frivolous. See In re D.D., 279 S.W.3d 849, 850 (Tex. App.—Dallas

2009, pet. denied). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's order of termination.

In the Interest of T.R.M., a Child Page 2 CONCLUSION

Having found no meritorious issues presented in this appeal, we affirm the

judgment of the trial court.

TOM GRAY Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Neill Affirmed Opinion delivered and filed December 16, 2020 CV06

In the Interest of T.R.M., a Child Page 3