in the Interest of M.F.R. ( 2021 )

In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
__________________
NO. 09-21-00144-CV
__________________
IN THE INTEREST OF M.F.R.
__________________________________________________________________
On Appeal from the County Court at Law
Orange County, Texas
Trial Cause No. C200333-D
__________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
C.R. (Mother) appeals from an order terminating her parental rights to her
minor child, M.F.R. To obtain a verdict terminating someone’s parental-rights, the
State must prove by clear and convincing evidence two things: (1) the parent
engaged in conduct that violated one of the twenty-one subsections listed in section
161.001(1) of the Texas Family Code; and (2) a decision terminating the parent’s
rights to the child is in the child’s best interest. 1
1
See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(b)(1)-(2).
1
In this appeal, the record shows the parties tried the case to the bench. When
the trial ended, the trial court found that clear and convincing evidence supported
the Department of Family and Protective Service’s allegations on five of the twenty-
one grounds listed in section 161.001 for terminating a parent’s relationship with her
child. 2 And together with those five grounds, the trial court also found that
terminating Mother’s relationship with M.F.R. is in M.F.R.’s best interest. 3
After the trial court signed the judgment, Mother appealed. On appeal, the
court-appointed attorney who represents Mother filed a brief. In the brief, the
attorney represents that no arguable grounds exist to support Mother’s appeal. 4 We
conclude the brief represents a professional evaluation of the record. We further note
that the record shows the attorney who represents Mother in her appeal sent her a
copy of the brief. After the Court received Mother’s brief, the Clerk notified Mother
that she could file a pro se response in her appeal. The Court also gave Mother a
deadline in which to file her response.
Mother responded to the notice by letter. In the letter, Mother states that she
has just completed a parenting class and is taking other classes that she asserts are
2
See id. § 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), (N), (O), (P).
3
See id. § 161.001(b)(2).
4
See Anders 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.).
2
equipping her with the skills she needs to care for M.F.R. Mother concludes her
letter by asking for another chance to prove that she can provide for M.F.R.’s needs.
We have carefully reviewed the record in Mother’s appeal. She did not prevail
on the disputed issues of fact that the trial court resolved against her in the trial.
Mother points to evidence in her letter that is outside the scope of the record in her
appeal. For these reasons, we conclude that Mother’s appeal is frivolous. And we
find no reasonable basis exists for this Court to require the trial court to appoint
another attorney to re-brief Mother’s appeal. 5
Accordingly, the trial court’s judgment terminating the parent-child
relationship between Mother and M.F.R. is
AFFIRMED.
_________________________
HOLLIS HORTON
Justice
Submitted on August 11, 2021
Opinion Delivered September 23, 2021
Before Golemon, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.
5
Cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).
3