Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
In the Interest of D.O.R. Jr., A.B.B. and J.L.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
In this parental-rights termination case, a jury found that Mother's parent-child relationships to her minor children, D.O.R. Jr., A.B.B., and J.L., should be terminated.1 See Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 161.001(1)(D), (E) (West 2014). The jury also found that it was in the children's best interest to terminate Mother's parental-rights with respect to these three children. See id. § 161.001(2) (West 2014). Based on the jury's verdict, the trial court rendered a judgment terminating Mother's parental-rights to D.O.R. Jr., A.B.B., and J.L.
In the appeal, the brief filed by Mother's court-appointed appellate counsel suggests that no arguable grounds exist to support arguments which would result in reversing the jury's verdict. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967); In re L.D.T., 161 S.W.3d 728, 731 (Tex.App.–Beaumont 2005, no pet.). The brief reflects counsel's professional evaluation of the record. The record before us also reflects that counsel served Mother with a copy of the Anders brief, moved to withdraw, and requested that Mother be provided an opportunity to file a pro se response. On October 30, 2014, we notified Mother that her response was due on November 19, 2014, but she did not file a pro se response.
We have reviewed counsel's brief and the trial court record. We conclude that no arguable grounds for appeal exist; therefore, we affirm the trial court's judgment.
We grant counsel's motion to withdraw.2
AFFIRMED.
FOOTNOTES
1. We identify the minors by their initials to protect their identities. See Tex.R.App. P. 9.8. Other family members are identified, as necessary, based on their respective relationships to the children being discussed.
2. In connection with withdrawing from the case, counsel shall inform Mother of the result of this appeal and that she has the right to file a petition for review with the Texas Supreme Court. See Tex.R.App. P. 53; In re K.D., 127 S.W.3d 66, 68 n.3 (Tex.App.–Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, no pet.).
HOLLIS HORTON, Justice
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: NO. 09-14-00440-CV
Decided: January 15, 2015
Court: Court of Appeals of Texas, Beaumont.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)