In the Interest of H.B., a Child Appeal from 361st District Court of Brazos County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS No. 10-17-00281-CV IN THE INTEREST OF H.B., A CHILD From the 361st District Court Brazos County, Texas Trial Court No. 16-001947-CV-361 MEMORANDUM OPINION Jack B. appeals from an order that terminated the parent-child relationship between him and his child, H.B. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 161.001 (West 2014). Jack's appointed counsel has filed an Anders brief 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 v. California 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 Jack that counsel had filed the brief pursuant to Anders and that Jack had the right to review the record and file a pro se response on his own behalf. Counsel also provided Jack with a copy of the record. Jack 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 one ground of the three on which the termination was granted and the best interest of the child. Counsel's brief also presents potential evidentiary issues from the trial and why those issues do not have merit. 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; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812-813 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); 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 Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); see also In re G.P., 535 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). We have carefully reviewed the entire record and the Anders brief, and determine 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 H.B., 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 Scoggins Affirmed Opinion delivered and filed February 21, 2018 [CV06] In the Interest of H.B., a Child Page 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
