In the Interest of J.D. Appeal from 410th District Court of Montgomery County (memorandum opinion )
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont ____________________ NO. 09-15-00080-CV ____________________ IN THE INTEREST OF J.D. _______________________________________________________ ______________ On Appeal from the 410th District Court Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause No. 13-11-12547 CV ________________________________________________________ _____________ MEMORANDUM OPINION This is a parental-rights termination case. Following a bench trial, the trial court signed a judgment terminating the parental rights of K.B. (Mother) and J.W.D. (Father) to their child (J.D.).1 Father has appealed from the trial court’s final judgment. The judgment reflects that the trial court found, by clear and convincing evidence, that Father’s parental rights should be terminated because he failed to 1 To protect the identity of the parties, they have been identified by their initials. See Tex. R. App. P. 9.8. Mother has not appealed from the trial court’s final judgment. 1 comply with a court order that established the actions necessary to obtain the return of J.D., and because he had knowingly engaged in criminal conduct that resulted in conviction and confinement and the inability to care for his child for a period of not less than two years. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(1) (O), (Q) (West 2014). The trial court also found that terminating Father’s parent-child relationship with J.D. was in J.D.’s best interest. Id. § 161.001(2) (West 2014). In the appeal, Father’s court-appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw, along with an Anders brief. In these, Father’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 to withdraw, Father’s counsel certified that she sent Father a copy of the Anders brief and her motion to withdraw, and that she informed Father of his right to review the records and to file a pro se response. See In the Interest of K.D., 127 S.W.3d 66, 67 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, no pet.). Although we granted Father an extension to file a response, no response was filed. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the trial court record. We conclude that no arguable grounds for appeal exist. We also find nothing to indicate new 2 counsel should be appointed to file another brief in Father’s appeal. Cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court’s final judgment terminating Father’s parental rights, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. 2 AFFIRMED. _________________________ HOLLIS HORTON Justice Submitted on July 21, 2015 Opinion Delivered August 13, 2015 Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ. 2 In connection with withdrawing from the case, counsel shall inform Father of the result of this appeal and that he has a right to file a petition for review with the Texas Supreme Court. See Tex. R. App. P. 53; In the Interest of K.D., 127 S.W.3d 66, 68 n.3 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, no pet.). 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.
