in the Interest of J.G. ( 2016 )

In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
____________________
NO. 09-16-00131-CV
____________________
IN THE INTEREST OF J.G.
_______________________________________________________ ______________
On Appeal from the 258th District Court
San Jacinto County, Texas
Trial Cause No. CV14,203
________________________________________________________ _____________
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
1
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.
2
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.
______________________________
CHARLES KREGER
Justice
Submitted on October 18, 2016
Opinion Delivered October 20, 2016
Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.
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.).
3