in the Interest of E.G.T.

In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
__________________
NO. 09-21-00343-CV
__________________
IN THE INTEREST OF E.G.T.
__________________________________________________________________
On Appeal from the County Court at Law
Orange County, Texas
Trial Cause No. C200637-D
__________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Following a trial to the bench, the trial court terminated Mother’s and Father’s
parent-child relationship with seven-year-old E.G.T. The judgment states the trial
court found, by clear and convincing evidence, that (1) Mother knowingly placed or
allowed E.G.T. to remain in conditions that endangered her well-being, (2) engaged
in conduct or knowingly placed the child with persons who engaged in conduct who
endangered E.G.T.’s physical or emotional well-being, and (3) failed to comply with
the provision of a court order establishing the actions necessary for Mother to obtain
1
the child’s return.1 The trial court also found that terminating Mother’s parent-child
relationship with E.G.T. is in the child’s best interest.2 As to Father, the trial court
found that Father executed an irrevocable affidavit relinquishing his parental rights
and that terminating his rights is in E.G.T.’s best interest.
After the trial court signed the order, Mother filed a notice to appeal but Father
did not.
On 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
1
See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), (O).
2
Id. § 161.001(b)(2).
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
Based on the above, the trial court’s judgment is
AFFIRMED.
_________________________
HOLLIS HORTON
Justice
Submitted on February 8, 2022
Opinion Delivered March 17, 2022
Before Golemon, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.
3