in the Interest of J.G. and T.L.

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________

NO. 09-07-029 CV ____________________

IN THE INTEREST OF J.G. and T.L.

---

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 3 Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause No. 05-12-11130-CV

---

MEMORANDUM OPINION  

Cathleen Luce Glass appeals from an order terminating her parental rights to her minor children J.G. and T.L., and Jon Glass appeals from an order terminating his parental rights to his minor child J.G. The trial court found, by clear and convincing evidence, that statutory grounds existed for the termination and that termination of the Glasses' parental rights would be in the best interest of the children. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001 (1) (D), (E), (N), (O) and (2) (Vernon Supp. 2006).

The Glasses' court-appointed appellate counsel submitted briefs in which she concludes that there are no arguable grounds to be advanced on appeal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct.1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967); In re L.D.T., 161 S.W.3d 728, 731 (Tex. App.--Beaumont 2005, no pet.). The briefs provide counsel's professional evaluation of the record. Counsel served each of the appellants with a copy of the Anders brief filed on his or her behalf. Counsel moved to withdraw and requested extensions of time for filing pro se briefs. On May 24, 2007, we granted extensions of time for filing pro se briefs. Neither appellant filed a pro se response.

We have independently reviewed the record and counsel's briefs and agree the appeal is frivolous. We conclude that no arguable grounds for appeal exist and we therefore affirm the judgment of the trial court. We grant appellate counsel's motions to withdraw. ⁽¹⁾

AFFIRMED.

__________________________________

CHARLES KREGER

Justice

Submitted on August 21, 2007

Opinion Delivered August 30, 2007

Before McKeithen, C.J., Gaultney, and Kreger, JJ.  

1. In connection with withdrawing from the case, counsel has a duty to inform the appellants of the result of this appeal and that they each have a right to file a petition for review with the Texas Supreme Court. See Tex. R. App. P. 53; In re K.D., 127 S.W.3d 66, 67 n.3 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, no pet.).