Opinion
NO. 09-19-00436-CV
03-26-2020
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. Mother appealed. But her court-appointed appellate attorney filed an Anders brief, asserting no arguable grounds can be advanced to support Mother's appeal.
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.).
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).
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. 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.
See In re D.D., 279 S.W.3d 849, 850 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2009, pet. denied).
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. 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." Accordingly, the trial court's judgment is affirmed.
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.
See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 107.016(3)(B); In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27-28 (Tex. 2016).
AFFIRMED.
/s/_________
HOLLIS HORTON
Justice Submitted on February 19, 2020
Opinion Delivered March 26, 2020 Before Kreger, Horton and Johnson, JJ.