In the Interest of C.D. and M.D. Appeal from County Court at Law No. 1 of Montgomery County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont __________________ NO. 09-23-00088-CV __________________ IN THE INTEREST OF C.D. AND M.D. ________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1 Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause No. 21-08-11962-CV __________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Mother appeals from an order terminating her parental rights to her one-yearold twins, C.D. and M.D. 1 The trial court found, by clear and convincing evidence, that Mother had executed a voluntary affidavit of relinquishment of her parental rights to the children, and that termination of her parental rights would be in the children’s best interest. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(b)(1)(K), (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). The trial court’s Order of Termination also terminated the children’s father’s parental rights, but the father is not a party to this appeal. 1 1 Mother’s appointed attorney submitted a brief in which he 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 he gave Mother a copy of the Anders brief he filed, notified Mother of her right to file a pro se brief, and notified Mother of how to access 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 2 Rule of 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). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s order terminating Mother’s parental rights.2 AFFIRMED. _________________________ LEANNE JOHNSON Justice Submitted on June 26, 2023 Opinion Delivered July 13, 2023 Before Golemon, C.J., Horton and Johnson, JJ. We note that if Appellant decides to pursue review by the Supreme Court of Texas, counsel may satisfy his 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.
