In the Interest of R.F., K.F., and K.F. Appeal from 317th District Court of Jefferson County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont __________________ NO. 09-22-00407-CV __________________ IN THE INTEREST OF R.F., K.F., AND K.F. ________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 317th District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. C-240,170 __________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Mother appeals from an order terminating her parental rights to her sevenyear-old daughter R.F., five-year-old son K.F., and four-year-old daughter K.F. 1 The trial court found, by clear and convincing evidence, that statutory grounds exist for termination of Mother’s parental rights, and that termination of her parental rights would be in the best interest of the children. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), (J), (P), (R), (2).2 To protect the identity of the children, we use pseudonyms to refer to the children and the parents. See Tex. R. App. P. 9.8(b)(2). 2 In a separate order, the trial court also terminated Father’s parental rights, but Father is not a party to this appeal. 1 1 Mother’s appointed attorney submitted a brief in which she contends that there are no meritorious issues for appeal and that the appeal is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); In re L.D.T., 161 S.W.3d 728, 730-31 (Tex. App.— Beaumont 2005, no pet.) (Anders procedures apply in parental-rights termination cases). The brief presents the attorney’s professional evaluation of the record and explains why no arguable grounds exist to overturn the trial court’s judgment. The attorney represented to the Court that she gave Mother a copy of the Anders brief she filed, notified Mother of her right to file a pro se brief, and provided Mother a copy of the appellate record. 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 evaluated the appellate record and the brief filed by Mother’s court-appointed attorney. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988) (citing Anders, 386 U.S. at 744); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); In re K.R.C., 346 S.W.3d 618, 619 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2009, no pet.). Based on our review we have found nothing that would arguably support an appeal and we agree that the appeal is frivolous and lacks merit. See Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 827-28 (“Due to the nature of Anders briefs, by indicating in the opinion that it considered the issues raised in the briefs and reviewed the record for reversible error but found none, the court of appeals met the requirements of Texas Rule of 2 Appellate Procedure 47.1.”); In re K.R.C., 346 S.W.3d at 619. Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief the appeal. Cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court’s order terminating Mother’s parental rights. Should Mother decide to pursue an appeal to the Supreme Court of Texas, her counsel’s obligation can be met “by filing a petition for review that satisfies the standards for an Anders brief.” See In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27-28 (Tex. 2016) (citations omitted). AFFIRMED. _________________________ LEANNE JOHNSON Justice Submitted on May 2, 2023 Opinion Delivered May 11, 2023 Before Horton, Johnson and Wright, JJ. 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.
