Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, 2022

in the Interest of M.T.

in the Interest of M.T.
Court of Civil Appeals of Texas · Decided February 3, 2022

in the Interest of M.T.

Opinion

In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont __________________ NO. 09-21-00248-CV __________________ IN THE INTEREST OF M.T. __________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the County Court at Law Orange County, Texas Trial Cause No. C200519-D __________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Following a bench trial, the trial court terminated Mother’s and Father’s parent-child relationship with their five-year-old child, M.T. 1 The judgment states the trial court found, by clear and convincing evidence, that Mother engaged in conduct that violated section 161.001(b)(1). 2 The trial court also found that terminating Mother’s and Father’s parent-child relationship with M.T. is in M.T.’s best interest.

1The order also terminated Father’s parental rights, but Father does not appeal.

2See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), (N), (O).

Mother filed a timely notice to appeal from the judgment. Father, however, did not appeal. In the appeal, Mother’s court-appointed attorney filed a brief in which she provides the Court with a professional evaluation of the record. According to Mother’s brief, no arguable grounds exist supporting Mother’s appeal.3 Mother’s attorney represents she sent Mother a copy of the brief she filed in the appeal. The record also shows the Clerk notified Mother she had the right to file a pro se response in her appeal. That said, Mother did not file a response.

We have independently reviewed the record and based on our review we find that Mother’s appeal is frivolous. For that reason, we need not appoint another attorney to re-brief the appeal.4 Accordingly, the trial court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

_________________________ HOLLIS HORTON Justice

Submitted on December 13, 2021 Opinion Delivered February 3, 2022 Before Kreger, Horton and Johnson, JJ.

3SeeAnders 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.).

4Cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.