in the Interest of H.B., a Child ( 2018 )

IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-17-00281-CV
IN THE INTEREST OF H.B., A CHILD
From the 361st District Court
Brazos County, Texas
Trial Court No. 16-001947-CV-361
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Jack B. appeals from an order that terminated the parent-child relationship
between him and his child, H.B. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 161.001 (West 2014). Jack's
appointed counsel has filed an Anders brief 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 v. California 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 Jack that counsel had filed the brief pursuant to Anders and that
Jack had the right to review the record and file a pro se response on his own behalf.
Counsel also provided Jack with a copy of the record. Jack 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 one ground of the
three on which the termination was granted and the best interest of the child. Counsel's
brief also presents potential evidentiary issues from the trial and why those issues do not
have merit. 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; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812-813 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); 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 Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App.
1991); see also In re G.P., 535 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).
We have carefully reviewed the entire record and the Anders brief, and determine
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 H.B., 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 Scoggins
Affirmed
Opinion delivered and filed February 21, 2018
[CV06]
In the Interest of H.B., a Child Page 3