In the Interest of W.I. v. << (2016)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

A.L. appeals from an order terminating her parental rights to the minor child, W.I.¹ The trial court found, by clear and convincing evidence, that statutory grounds exist for termination of the parental rights of A.L. and that termination of her parental rights would be in the best interest of the child.  See Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 161.001(b)(1)(D), (M), (O), (Q) (West Supp.2015);  id. § 161.001(b)(2).

Court-appointed appellate counsel or A.L. submitted a brief in which counsel contends there are no arguable grounds to be advanced on 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.  Counsel served A.L. with a copy of the Anders brief.  This Court notified A.L. of her right to file a pro se response, as well as the deadline for doing so.  This Court did not receive a pro se response from A.L.

We have independently reviewed the appellate record and counsel's brief, and we agree that any appeal would be frivolous.  We 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).  We affirm the trial court's order terminating the parental rights of A.L., but we deny counsel's motion to withdraw without prejudice as premature.  See In the Interest of P.M., No. 15–0171, 2016 Tex. LEXIS 236, at * *5–8 (Tex. Apr. 1, 2016) (not yet released for publication).

AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The trial court's order also terminated the rights of the child's father, but the child's father did not file a notice of appeal.

STEVE McKEITHEN, Chief Justice