in the Interest of W.I.

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: April 14, 2016
• Docket: 09-15-00475-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont ________________

NO. 09-15-00475-CV ________________

IN THE INTEREST OF W.I.

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 3 Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause No. 14-10-11209-CV __________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

A.L. appeals from an order terminating her parental rights to the minor child,

W.I. 1 The trial court found, by clear and convincing evidence, that statutory

grounds exist for termination of the parental rights of A.L. and that termination of

her parental rights would be in the best interest of the child. See Tex. Fam. Code

Ann. § 161.001(b)(1)(D), (M), (O), (Q) (West Supp. 2015); id. § 161.001(b)(2).

Court-appointed appellate counsel or A.L. submitted a brief in which

counsel contends there are no arguable grounds to be advanced on appeal. See

1 The trial court’s order also terminated the rights of the child’s father, but the child’s father did not file a notice of appeal. 1 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.). The brief provides counsel’s professional

evaluation of the record. Counsel served A.L. with a copy of the Anders brief. This

Court notified A.L. of her 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 A.L.

We have independently reviewed the appellate record and counsel’s brief,

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. Compare

Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial

court’s order terminating the parental rights of A.L., but we deny counsel’s motion

to withdraw without prejudice as premature. See In the Interest of P.M., No. 15-

0171, 2016 Tex. LEXIS 236, at **5-8 (Tex. Apr. 1, 2016) (not yet released for

publication).

AFFIRMED.

______________________________ STEVE McKEITHEN Chief Justice

Submitted on March 16, 2016 Opinion Delivered April 14, 2016

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