in the Interest of B.L.B. ( 2021 )

In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
________________
NO. 09-21-00147-CV
________________
IN THE INTEREST OF B.L.B.
________________________________________________________________________
On Appeal from the County Court at Law
Orange County, Texas
Trial Cause No. C190094-D
________________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
C.N.B. appeals from an order terminating her parental rights to her child,
B.L.B. 1 The trial court found, based on clear and convincing evidence, that statutory
grounds exist for terminating C.N.B.’s parental rights and terminating her rights was
in B.L.B’s best interest.2 See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), (F), (I),
(N), (O), (b)(2); § 161.003. C.N.B.’s court-appointed appellate counsel submitted a
1
To protect the minor’s identity, we use initials for the child and Mother. See
Tex. R. App. P. 9.8(b)(2).
2
The trial court also terminated Father’s parental rights after he signed an
affidavit of voluntary relinquishment, but he is not a party to this appeal.
1
brief in which counsel asserts there are no meritorious grounds to be advanced on
appeal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); In re L.D.T., 161 S.W.3d 728(Tex. App.—Beaumont 2005, not pet.). The brief provides counsel’s professional
evaluation of the record and explains that after a thorough review of the record, an
appeal would be frivolous. Counsel certified C.N.B. was served with a copy of the
Anders brief filed on her behalf. Then, the Court notified C.N.B. of her right to file
a pro se response and the deadline for filing a response. C.N.B. filed a pro se
response.
We have independently reviewed the appellate record, counsel’s brief, and
C.N.B.’s pro se response. We agree an appeal would be frivolous. We find no
arguable error exists that requires appointing new counsel to re-brief C.N.B.’s
appeal. Cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).
Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s order terminating C.N.B.’s parental
rights. We deny the motion to withdraw filed by her court-appointed appellate
counsel. An attorney’s duty extends through the time the client exhausts or waives
her right to appeal our ruling to the Texas Supreme Court. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann.
§ 107.016(2)(B); In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 (Tex. 2016). If C.N.B. decides to
appeal to the Supreme Court of Texas, counsel may meet his obligations to C.N.B.
“by filing a petition for review that satisfies the standards for an Anders brief.” See
In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d at 27-28.
2
AFFIRMED.
________________________________
CHARLES KREGER
Justice
Submitted on September 27, 2021
Opinion Delivered October 21, 2021
Before Golemon, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.
3