IN THE INTEREST OF v. <<

Reset A A Font size: Print

Court of Appeals of Texas, Beaumont.

IN THE INTEREST OF J.G.

NO. 09-16-00131-CV

Decided: October 20, 2016

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellants C.M. and J.G. appeal from the trial court's order terminating their parental rights to the minor child, J.G. The trial court found by clear and convincing evidence that termination of the parental rights of C.M. and J.G. was in the best interest of the child and that C.M. and J.G. violated subsections (N), (O), and (P) of section 161.001(b)(1) of the Texas Family Code. After the final hearing, the trial court ordered the parental rights of C.M. and J.G. terminated.

Court-appointed counsel for both C.M. and J.G. each filed an Anders brief stating their professional opinion that no arguable grounds of error existed. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); see also In re L.D.T., 161 S.W.3d 728, 731 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2005, no pet.) (holding that “when appointed counsel represents an indigent client in a parental termination appeal and concludes that there are no non-frivolous issues for appeal, counsel may file an Anders brief”); Taylor v. Tex. Dep't of Protective & Regulatory Servs., 160 S.W.3d 641, 646–47 (Tex. App.—Austin 2005, pet. denied) (applying Anders procedure in appeal from an order terminating parental rights. We granted an extension to both appellants to allow time to file a pro se brief, but neither appellant filed a brief.

When faced with an Anders brief and if a later pro se brief is filed, the court of appeals has two choices: (1) it may determine that the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that it has reviewed the record and finds no reversible error, or (2) it may determine that arguable grounds for appeal exist and remand the cause to the trial court so that new counsel may be appointed to brief the issues. Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

We have independently reviewed the clerk's record, the reporter's record, and the Anders briefs, and we agree with appellate counsels' contention that no arguable issues support an appeal by C.M. or J.G. See id. Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief the appeal of either C.M. or J.G. See id.

We affirm the trial court's order terminating the parental rights of C.M. and J.G., and we grant the motions to withdraw filed by counsel for C.M. and J.G.1

AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

1.   In connection with withdrawing from the case, counsel shall inform C.M. and J.G. of the result of this appeal and that C.M. and J.G. have a right to file a petition for review with the Texas Supreme Court. See Tex. R. App. P. 53; In the Interest of K.D., 127 S.W.3d 66, 68 n.3 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist. 2003, no pet.).

CHARLES KREGER Justice