IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-20-00254-CV
IN THE INTEREST OF T.R.M., A CHILD
From the 74th District Court
McLennan County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2019-4171-3
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Courtney B. appeals from an order that terminated the parent-child relationship
between her and her child, T.R.M. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 161.001. Courtney's
appointed counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California asserting that the
appeal presents no issues of arguable merit. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.
Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967). The procedures set forth in Anders are applicable to
appeals of orders terminating parental rights. In re E.L.Y., 69 S.W.3d 838, 841 (Tex. App.—
Waco 2002, order). Counsel advised Courtney that counsel had filed the brief pursuant
to Anders and that Courtney had the right to review the record and file a pro se response
on her own behalf. Counsel also provided Courtney with a copy of the record. Courtney
did not file a response with this Court.
Counsel included a detailed recitation of the facts in the Anders brief and asserted
that counsel reviewed the trial court's jurisdiction and the record for any potentially
meritorious issues and determined there is no non-frivolous issue to raise in this appeal.
Counsel's brief discusses the sufficiency of the evidence relating to Section
161.001(b)(1)(E) which was one ground on which the termination was granted and the
best interest of the child. Counsel's brief evidences a professional evaluation of the record,
and we conclude that counsel performed the duties required of appointed counsel. See
Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406-408 (Tex. Crim. App.
2008).
Upon the filing of the Anders brief, as the reviewing appellate court, it is our duty
to independently examine the record to decide whether counsel is correct in determining
that an appeal is frivolous. See In the Interest of G.P., 503 S.W.3d 531, 536 (Tex. App.—
Waco 2016, pet. denied). Arguments are frivolous when they "cannot conceivably
persuade the court." McCoy v. Court of Appeals, 486 U.S. 429, 436, 108 S. Ct. 1895, 100 L.
Ed. 2d 440 (1988).
Having carefully reviewed the entire record and the Anders brief, we agree with
counsel that the appeal is frivolous. See In re D.D., 279 S.W.3d 849, 850 (Tex. App.—Dallas
2009, pet. denied). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's order of termination.
In the Interest of T.R.M., a Child Page 2
CONCLUSION
Having found no meritorious issues presented in this appeal, we affirm the
judgment of the trial court.
TOM GRAY
Chief Justice
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Davis, and
Justice Neill
Affirmed
Opinion delivered and filed December 16, 2020
CV06
In the Interest of T.R.M., a Child Page 3