in the Interest of R.J. ( 2022 )

In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
__________________
NO. 09-22-00094-CV
__________________
IN THE INTEREST OF R.J.
__________________________________________________________________
On Appeal from the 317th District Court
Jefferson County, Texas
Trial Cause No. C-239,525
__________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Following a bench trial, the trial court terminated Mother’s and
Father’s parent-child relationship with R.J., whom we will call Casey,
their fifteen-month-old child.1 As to Mother, the trial court found clear
and convincing evidence established that Mother:
(1) knowingly placed or knowingly allowed the children to remain
in conditions or surroundings that endangered the physical or
1To protect the identities of Mother, Father, and their children, we
use pseudonyms in the opinion in place of names. See Tex. R. App. P.
9.8(a), (b).
1
emotional well-being of the children, pursuant to §
161.001(b)(1)(D), Texas Family Code;
(2) engaged in conduct or knowingly placed the children with
persons who engaged in conduct which endangers the physical
or emotional well-being of the children, pursuant to §
161.001(b)(1)(E), Texas Family Code;
(3) failed to comply with the provisions of a court order establishing
the actions Mother had to follow to have her children returned
after they were placed with the Department of Family and
Protective Services for not less than nine months following their
removal for abuse or neglect, pursuant to § 161.001(b)(1)(O),
Texas Family Code; and
(4) used a controlled substance, as defined by Chapter 481, Health
and Safety Code, in a manner that endangered the health or
safety of the child, and then failed to complete a court-ordered
substance abuse treatment program or continued to abuse a
controlled substance in a manner that endangered the health or
safety of her children. 2
The trial court also found that terminating Mother’s and Father’s parent-
child relationship with Casey is in Casey’s best interest. After the trial
court signed the Final Order of Termination, Mother filed her notice of
appeal. Father, however, did not. 3
On appeal, Mother’s court-appointed attorney filed a brief. The
brief provides the Court with a professional evaluation of the record.
2See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), (O), (P).
3The trial court found that Father’s rights should be terminated on
five grounds under the Family Code. We need not mention the grounds
on which the trial court terminated Father’s rights, however, since
Father did not appeal.
2
According to Mother’s brief, no arguable grounds exist to support
Mother’s appeal.4 Mother’s attorney also provided the Court with a letter,
which he sent to Mother, in which the attorney represents that he
provided Mother with a copy of the brief that was filed in her appeal.
After receiving the Anders brief, the Clerk of the Ninth Court of
Appeals notified Mother that she had until June 27, 2022, to file a pro se
response with the Court. Yet the appellate record shows that Mother,
after being notified of her right to respond, did not file a response after
receiving the notice.
We have independently reviewed the appellate record. Based on
that review, we find Mother’s appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we need
not appoint another attorney to re-brief the appeal. 5
Accordingly, the trial court’s judgment is
AFFIRMED.
_________________________
HOLLIS HORTON
Justice
Submitted on July 26, 2022
Opinion Delivered September 8, 2022
Before Golemon, C.J., Horton and Johnson, JJ.
4See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); In re L.D.T., 161
S.W.3d 728, 731 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2005, no pet.).
5Cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).
3