in the Interest of M.C.

In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
__________________
NO. 09-19-00436-CV
__________________
IN THE INTEREST OF M.C.
__________________________________________________________________
On Appeal from the 411th District Court
San Jacinto County, Texas
Trial Cause No. CV15,640
__________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Following a hearing, the trial court terminated the parent-child relationship
between Mother and her son, Drew. 1 Mother appealed. But her court-appointed
appellate attorney filed an Anders brief, asserting no arguable grounds can be
advanced to support Mother’s appeal. 2
1
To protect the identity of the minor child identified in the trial court’s
judgment, we use a pseudonym. We follow the same convention for the child’s
mother. See Tex. R. App. P. 9.8(a), (b); see also Tex. Fam. Code Ann. §
161.001(b)(1)(O), (b)(2), (d) (Supp.).
2
See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); see also In re L.D.T., 161
S.W.3d 728, 731 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2005, no pet.) (holding that Anders
procedures apply in parental-rights termination cases).
1
We conclude Mother’s brief complies with the requirements applicable to
Anders briefs. The brief that counsel filed presents counsel’s professional evaluation
of the record and explains why no arguable grounds exist to support overturning the
judgment rendered in the court below. 3 Counsel gave Mother a copy of the brief
counsel filed on Mother’s behalf, notified Mother she could file a pro se brief, and
explained to Mother how she could review a copy of the record that is relevant to
her appeal. The record shows Mother did not respond by filing her own brief.
We have reviewed the appellate record, including the transcript of the hearing
that resulted in the trial court’s decision to terminate Mother’s rights to Drew.
Having reviewed the record, we conclude no arguable grounds exist to support
Mother’s appeal and conclude Mother’s appeal is frivolous.4 We note counsel’s duty
to represent her client extends through the exhaustion or waiver of all appeals.
Should Mother desire to appeal further, counsel may satisfy her duty to Mother “by
filing a petition for review [with the Texas Supreme Court] that satisfies the
standards for an Anders brief.” 5 Accordingly, the trial court’s judgment is affirmed.
3
See In re D.D., 279 S.W.3d 849, 850 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2009, pet. denied).
4
See In re K.R.C., 346 S.W.3d 618, 619 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2009, no pet.);
In re D.D., 279 S.W.3d at 850.
5
See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 107.016(3)(B); In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27-
28 (Tex. 2016).
2
AFFIRMED.
_________________________
HOLLIS HORTON
Justice
Submitted on February 19, 2020
Opinion Delivered March 26, 2020
Before Kreger, Horton and Johnson, JJ.
3