In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
____________________
NO. 09-15-00080-CV
____________________
IN THE INTEREST OF J.D.
_______________________________________________________ ______________
On Appeal from the 410th District Court
Montgomery County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 13-11-12547 CV
________________________________________________________ _____________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This is a parental-rights termination case. Following a bench trial, the trial
court signed a judgment terminating the parental rights of K.B. (Mother) and
J.W.D. (Father) to their child (J.D.).1 Father has appealed from the trial court’s
final judgment.
The judgment reflects that the trial court found, by clear and convincing
evidence, that Father’s parental rights should be terminated because he failed to
1
To protect the identity of the parties, they have been identified by their
initials. See Tex. R. App. P. 9.8. Mother has not appealed from the trial court’s
final judgment.
1
comply with a court order that established the actions necessary to obtain the return
of J.D., and because he had knowingly engaged in criminal conduct that resulted in
conviction and confinement and the inability to care for his child for a period of
not less than two years. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(1) (O), (Q) (West
2014). The trial court also found that terminating Father’s parent-child relationship
with J.D. was in J.D.’s best interest. Id. § 161.001(2) (West 2014).
In the appeal, Father’s court-appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw,
along with an Anders brief. In these, Father’s counsel argues that no issues of
arguable merit are available to support an 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.). In the brief, counsel provides the court with counsel’s professional
evaluation of the record. In the motion to withdraw, Father’s counsel certified that
she sent Father a copy of the Anders brief and her motion to withdraw, and that she
informed Father of his right to review the records and to file a pro se response. See
In the Interest of K.D., 127 S.W.3d 66, 67 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2003,
no pet.). Although we granted Father an extension to file a response, no response
was filed.
We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the trial court record. We conclude
that no arguable grounds for appeal exist. We also find nothing to indicate new
2
counsel should be appointed to file another brief in Father’s appeal. Cf. Stafford v.
State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court’s
final judgment terminating Father’s parental rights, and we grant counsel’s motion
to withdraw. 2
AFFIRMED.
_________________________
HOLLIS HORTON
Justice
Submitted on July 21, 2015
Opinion Delivered August 13, 2015
Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.
2
In connection with withdrawing from the case, counsel shall inform Father
of the result of this appeal and that he has 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.).
3