In the Interest of M.E. 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. 09-22-00242-CV ________________ IN THE INTEREST OF M.E. ________________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 279th District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. F-237,814 ________________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant Mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her child, M.E. 1 See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001. The trial court found by clear and convincing evidence that statutory grounds exist for termination and that termination is in the best interest of the child. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), (F), (K), (N), (O), (P), (2). To protect the identity of the minor, we use initials to refer to the child. See Tex. R. App. P. 9.8(b)(2). 1 1 Appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel submitted a brief in which counsel contends there are no meritorious issues for 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.). The brief provides counsel’s professional evaluation of the record, discusses the evidence at trial and the applicable legal standard, the trial court’s ruling, and why the trial court’s ruling is supported by sufficient evidence. Counsel concludes there are no arguable grounds to be advanced on appeal. Counsel certified that Appellant was served with a copy of the Anders brief. The Court notified Mother of her right to file a pro se response and of the deadline for doing so. Mother did not file a response with the Court. We have independently reviewed the entire record and counsel’s brief, and we conclude that there are no arguable grounds for review, that no reversible error exists, and that Appellant’s appeal is frivolous. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744 (emphasizing that the reviewing court—and not counsel—determines, after full examination of proceedings, whether the appeal is wholly frivolous). As a result, we affirm the trial court’s termination of Appellant’s parental rights. We further 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). 2 Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s order terminating Appellant’s parental rights.2 AFFIRMED. ________________________________ LEANNE JOHNSON Justice Submitted on December 28, 2022 Opinion Delivered January 12, 2023 Before Golemon, C.J., Johnson and Horton, JJ. We note that if Appellant decides to pursue review by the Supreme Court of Texas, counsel may satisfy her obligations to Appellant “by filing a petition for review that satisfies the standards for an Anders brief.” In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27-28 (Tex. 2016). 3 2
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.
