in the Interest of B.J.B

In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
__________________
NO. 09-21-00355-CV
__________________
IN THE INTEREST OF B.J.B.
__________________________________________________________________
On Appeal from the County Court at Law
Orange County, Texas
Trial Cause No. C190751-D
__________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Following a final bench trial, the trial court terminated Mother’s and Father’s
parent-child relationship with their six-year-old child, B.J.B.1 The judgment states
the trial court found, by clear and convincing evidence, that Mother and Father
engaged in conduct that violated section 161.001(b)(1).2 The trial court also found
that terminating Mother’s and Father’s parent-child relationship with B.J.B. is in
B.J.B.’s best interest.
1
The order also terminated Father’s parental rights, but Father does not appeal.
2
See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), (N), (O).
1
Mother filed a timely notice of appeal from the judgment. Father, however,
did not. In Mother’s appeal, Mother’s court-appointed attorney filed a brief. The
brief filed in Mother’s appeal provides the Court with a professional evaluation of
the record. According to the brief, no arguable grounds exist to support Mother’s
appeal.3 Mother’s attorney certified she sent Mother a copy of the brief, and upon
receiving the brief, the Clerk of the Ninth Court of Appeals notified Mother she had
the right to file a pro se response. Even so, the appellate record shows Mother did
not respond.
We have independently reviewed the record. Based on that review, we find
Mother’s appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we need not appoint another attorney to
re-brief the appeal.4
Based on the above, the trial court’s judgment is
AFFIRMED.
_________________________
HOLLIS HORTON
Justice
Submitted on February 22, 2022
Opinion Delivered March 3, 2022
Before Golemon, C.J., Horton and Johnson, JJ.
3
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.).
4
Cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).
2