In the Interest of D.O.R. Jr., A.B.B. and J.L. v. <<

Reset A A Font size: Print

Court of Appeals of Texas, Beaumont.

In the Interest of D.O.R. Jr., A.B.B. and J.L.

NO. 09-14-00440-CV

Decided: January 15, 2015

Before McKeithen, C.J., Horton and Johnson, JJ.


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



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.).