in the Interest of K.Y.

In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
________________
NO. 09-22-00137-CV
________________
IN THE INTEREST OF K.Y.
________________________________________________________________________
On Appeal from the 317th District Court
Jefferson County, Texas
Trial Cause No. F-238,197
________________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his child,
K.Y.1 See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001. The trial court found, by clear and
convincing evidence, that statutory grounds exist for termination and that
termination is in the best interest of the child. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. §
161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), (N), (O), (Q), (2).
1
To protect the identity of the minor, we use initials to refer to the child. See
Tex. R. App. P. 9.8(b)(2).
1
Appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel submitted a brief in which
counsel contends there are no meritorious issues for appeal; counsel
contemporaneously filed a motion to withdraw. See 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.). The brief provides counsel’s professional evaluation of the record, discusses
the evidence at trial and the applicable legal standard, the trial court’s ruling, and
why the trial court’s ruling is supported by sufficient evidence. Counsel concludes
there are no arguable grounds to be advanced on appeal. Counsel certified that
Appellant was served with a copy of the Anders brief. On July 12, 2022, this Court
notified Appellant of his right to file a pro se response, as well as the August 11,
2022 deadline for doing so. This Court received no pro-se response from the
Appellant.
We have independently reviewed the entire record and counsel’s brief, and
we conclude that there are no arguable grounds for review, that no reversible error
exists, and that Appellant’s appeal is frivolous. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744(emphasizing that the reviewing court—and not counsel—determines, after full
examination of proceedings, whether the appeal is wholly frivolous). As a result, we
affirm the trial court’s termination of Appellant’s parental rights. We further find no
arguable error requiring us to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief this
appeal. Compare Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).
2
But we deny the motion to withdraw because this is a parental termination
case and counsel’s motion to withdraw does not show “good cause” for withdrawal.
See In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 (Tex. 2016) (In a parental termination case when
the attorney files an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw, “an Anders motion to
withdraw brought in the court of appeals, in the absence of additional grounds for
withdrawal, may be premature.”). An attorney appointed under section
107.013(a)(1) of the Texas Family Code continues to represent an indigent parent as
outlined under section 107.016 of the Texas Family Code until the earliest of either
the date the suit is dismissed, the date that all appeals in relation to any final order
terminating parental rights are exhausted or waived, or the date the attorney is
relieved of the attorney’s duties or replaced by another attorney after a finding of
good cause is rendered by the court on the record. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. §§
107.013(a)(1), 107.016(2); In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d at 27.2
AFFIRMED.
________________________________
CHARLES KREGER
Justice
Submitted on September 6, 2022
Opinion Delivered September 15, 2022
Before Golemon, C.J., Kreger and Johnson, JJ.
2
We note that if Appellant decides to pursue review by the Supreme Court of
Texas, counsel may satisfy her obligations to Appellant “by filing a petition for
review that satisfies the standards for an Anders brief.” In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24,
27-28 (Tex. 2016).
3