in the Interest of M.T. ( 2022 )

In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
__________________
NO. 09-21-00248-CV
__________________
IN THE INTEREST OF M.T.
__________________________________________________________________
On Appeal from the County Court at Law
Orange County, Texas
Trial Cause No. C200519-D
__________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Following a bench trial, the trial court terminated Mother’s and Father’s
parent-child relationship with their five-year-old child, M.T. 1 The judgment states
the trial court found, by clear and convincing evidence, that Mother engaged in
conduct that violated section 161.001(b)(1). 2 The trial court also found that
terminating Mother’s and Father’s parent-child relationship with M.T. is in M.T.’s
best interest.
1The order also terminated Father’s parental rights, but Father does not appeal.
2See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), (N), (O).
1
Mother filed a timely notice to appeal from the judgment. Father, however,
did not appeal. In the appeal, Mother’s court-appointed attorney filed a brief in which
she provides the Court with a professional evaluation of the record. According to
Mother’s brief, no arguable grounds exist supporting Mother’s appeal.3 Mother’s
attorney represents she sent Mother a copy of the brief she filed in the appeal. The
record also shows the Clerk notified Mother she had the right to file a pro se response
in her appeal. That said, Mother did not file a response.
We have independently reviewed the record and based on our review we find
that Mother’s appeal is frivolous. For that reason, we need not appoint another
attorney to re-brief the appeal.4
Accordingly, the trial court’s judgment is
AFFIRMED.
_________________________
HOLLIS HORTON
Justice
Submitted on December 13, 2021
Opinion Delivered February 3, 2022
Before Kreger, Horton and Johnson, JJ.
3SeeAnders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); In the Interest of L.D.T., 161
S.W.3d 728, 731 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2005, no pet.).
4Cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).
2