In the Interest of T.B. Appeal from 279th District Court of Jefferson County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont ____________________ NO. 09-18-00354-CV ____________________ IN THE INTEREST OF T.B. _______________________________________________________ ______________ On Appeal from the 279th District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. C-232,057 ________________________________________________________ _____________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Mother appeals from an order terminating her parental rights to her son, T.B. 1 Following a hearing, the trial court found that statutory grounds existed to support a decision terminating Mother’s parental rights and that terminating Mother’s rights to T.B. is in T.B.’s best interest.2 While Mother’s court-appointed trial attorney filed 1 To protect the identity of the minor child, we have not used the name of the child, that of his parents, or the other members of his family. See Tex. R. App. P. 9.8(a), (b). 2 See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. §§ 161.001(b)(1)(M), 161.001(b)(2) (West Supp. 2018). 1 a notice of appeal, her court-appointed appellate attorney, after reviewing the record, filed an Anders brief.3 In the brief, the attorney indicates that she reviewed the record but could find no grounds that have merit upon which she could file a brief challenging the trial court’s ruling. In our opinion, the brief that is before us complies with the requirements for Anders briefs. It presents an attorney’s professional evaluation of the record and explains why no arguable grounds exist to overturn the trial court’s judgment.4 Mother’s appellate attorney has represented to the Court that she gave Mother a copy of the brief that was filed in Mother’s appeal, notified Mother of her right to file a pro se brief, and explained how Mother could review a copy of the record that is before the Court in this appeal. The Court’s records show that Mother did not file a response. We have independently evaluated the record of the hearing that resulted in the trial court’s decision to terminate Mother’s parental rights. 5 Based on our review of 3 See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); see also In re L.D.T., 161 S.W.3d 728, 731 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2005, no pet.) (holding that Anders procedures apply in parental-rights termination cases). 4 See In re D.D., 279 S.W.3d 849, 850 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2009, pet. denied). 5 Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); see also In re K.R.C., 346 S.W.3d 618, 619 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2009, no pet.). 2 the record, we conclude that no arguable grounds exist to support an appeal from the trial court’s judgment and that the appeal is frivolous. 6 For those reasons, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. While Mother’s courtappointed attorney filed a motion to withdraw, we deny that motion because appellate counsel’s duty to represent her client extends through the exhaustion or waiver of all appeals.7 Should Mother advise counsel that she desires to pursue an appeal to the Supreme Court of Texas, counsel may satisfy her obligation to Mother “by filing a petition for review that satisfies the standards for an Anders brief.”8 AFFIRMED. _________________________ HOLLIS HORTON Justice Submitted on November 26, 2018 Opinion Delivered February 7, 2019 Before McKeithen, C.J., Horton and Johnson, JJ. 6 See In re K.R.C., 346 S.W.3d at 619; In re D.D., 279 S.W.3d at 850. 7 See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 107.016(3)(B) (West Supp. 2018); In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 (Tex. 2016). 8 In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d at 27-28. 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.
