In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
____________________
NO. 09-17-00344-CV
____________________
IN THE INTEREST OF R.B. AND M.B.
_______________________________________________________ ______________
On Appeal from the 317th District Court
Jefferson County, Texas
Trial Cause No. C-226,333
________________________________________________________ _____________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
In this parental-rights-termination case, the trial court terminated Mother’s
and Father’s parental rights to R.B. and M.B.1 after Father failed to appear and a jury
found that Mother’s parental relationship with the children should be terminated.
After the trial court rendered judgment, Mother perfected her appeal. Subsequently,
the court-appointed attorney representing Mother in her appeal filed an Anders brief.
See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); see also In re L.D.T., 161 S.W.3d
1
We use the initials of the minors and refer to their parents as Mother and
Father to protect the minors’ identities. See Tex. R. App. P. 9.8.
1
728, 731 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2005, no pet.) (holding that Anders procedures
apply in parental-rights termination cases). In the brief, Mother’s appellate attorney
indicated that he had reviewed the record, and that he could find no non-frivolous
argument that could be raised to challenge the trial court’s ruling terminating
Mother’s rights to R.B. and to M.B.
In our opinion, the brief filed by Mother’s court-appointed attorney complies
with the requirements established for the filing of an Anders brief. The brief presents
the attorney’s professional evaluation of the record, and the brief explains why no
arguable grounds exist that would allow counsel to file a brief seeking to reverse the
judgment terminating Mother’s parental rights. See In re D.D., 279 S.W.3d 849, 850
(Tex. App.—Dallas 2009, pet. denied). Mother’s appellate attorney also represented
to the Court that he provided Mother with a copy of the Anders brief, that he notified
Mother of her right to file a pro se brief, and that he provided Mother with a copy of
the record from the trial.
After counsel filed the Anders brief, we notified Mother, by letter, that she
had the right to file a pro se response, and that her response was due by December
13, 2017. Although given the opportunity to file a response, our records show that
Mother did not do so. Our records also show that the Texas Department of Family
2
and Protective Services filed a response indicating that it would not file a brief in the
appeal unless we requested that it do so.
In response to the Anders brief filed in Mother’s appeal, we have
independently evaluated the record of the trial that resulted in the termination of
Mother’s parental rights to two of her children in order to determine if arguable
grounds exist that might support a decision to reverse the judgment the trial court
rendered following the trial. Cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim.
App. 1991); see In re K.R.C., 346 S.W.3d 618, 619 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2009, no
pet.). After independently reviewing the record from the trial, we conclude that no
arguable grounds exist to support an appeal from the trial court’s judgment, and we
conclude that Mother’s appeal is frivolous. See In re K.R.C., 346 S.W.3d at 619; In
re D.D., 279 S.W.3d at 850.
Accordingly, we affirm the final judgment. We deny the motion to withdraw
filed by Mother’s court-appointed appellate attorney because an attorney’s duty
extends through the exhaustion or waiver of all appeals. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. §
107.016(3)(B) (West Supp. 2017); In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 (Tex. 2016).
Should Mother desire to pursue an appeal to the Supreme Court of Texas, counsel
may satisfy his obligations to Mother “by filing a petition for review that satisfies
the standards for an Anders brief.” In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d at 27-28.
3
AFFIRMED.
_________________________
HOLLIS HORTON
Justice
Submitted on December 27, 2017
Opinion Delivered January 18, 2018
Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.
4