in the Interest of C. M. S. and D. R. F. II

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont ____________________

NO. 09-21-00009-CV ____________________

IN THE INTEREST OF C.M.S. AND D.R.F. II _______________________________________________________ ______________ On Appeal from the County Court at Law

Polk County, Texas

Trial Cause No. CIV32663 ________________________________________________________ _____________ MEMORANDUM OPINION

V.S. appeals from an order terminating her parental rights to her children, C.M.S and D.R.F. II. 1, 2

The trial court found by clear and convincing evidence, statutory grounds exist for termination of V.S.’s parental rights, and termination of her rights would be in the children’s best interest. See Tex. Fam. Code. Ann. § 161.001(b)(1)(E), (O). Appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel submitted a brief in which counsel contends there are no meritorious grounds to be advanced on appeal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967); In re L.D.T., 161 S.W.3d 1 To protect the identity of the minors, we use initials for the children and their mother. See Tex. R. App. P. 9.8(b)(2).

728, 731 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2005, no pet.). The brief provides counsel’s professional evaluation of the record. Counsel certified Appellant was served with a copy of the Anders brief filed on her behalf. This Court notified Appellant of her right to file a pro se response, as well as the deadline for filing the response. This Court did not receive a pro se response from Appellant. We have independently reviewed the appellate record and counsel’s brief, and we agree any appeal would be frivolous. We find no arguable error requiring us to appoint new counsel to re- brief this appeal. Cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).

Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s order terminating V.S.’s parental rights. In the event V.S. decides to pursue an appeal to the Supreme Court of Texas, counsel’s obligations to V.S. can be met “by filing a petition for review that satisfies the standards for an Anders brief.” In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 28 (Tex. 2016). See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 107.016 (3)(B).

AFFIRMED. _________________________ CHARLES KREGER Justice Submitted on April 21, 2021

Opinion Delivered May 27, 2021

Before Golemon, C.J., Kreger, and Johnson, JJ.