Opinion
No. 01-05-00334-CV
Opinion issued July 13, 2006.
On Appeal from the 306th District Court, Galveston County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 04CP0028.
Panel consists of Justices KEYES, ALCALA, and BLAND.
MEMORANDUM OPINION ON REHEARING
On June 9, 2005, by memorandum opinion, we dismissed the appeal for nonpayment of fees. On August 19, 2005, we granted rehearing and withdrew our previous opinion and judgment.
This is an accelerated appeal from an order terminating the parental rights of appellants, Braynon Johnson and Catherine Johnson, to their minor child, D.J. Catherine's counsel has filed an Anders brief and has informed this Court that he has made a professional evaluation of the record and that, after his evaluation, he has concluded that there is no reversible error in appellant's case and no ground that can arguably support any appeal.
During the pendency of this appeal, we received an affidavit from Braynon's appellate counsel that Braynon had passed away, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel. On December 15, 2005, we granted the motion to withdraw.
See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 263.405(a) (Vernon Supp. 2005) (entitled "Appeal of Final Order").
See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967).
See In re K.D., 127 S.W.3d 66, 67 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st] 2003, no pet.) (following sister courts in holding procedures set forth in Anders are applicable to appeal from termination of parental rights when appointed counsel concludes that there are no non-frivolous issues to assert on appeal); see also In re D.E.S., 135 S.W.3d 326, 329 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th] 2004, no pet.).
We affirm.
Background
The Department of Family and Protective Services ("DFPS") filed a petition to terminate Braynon's and Catherine's parental rights concerning their child D.J. Following a bench trial, the trial court signed a decree terminating their parental rights to the child. The decree recited that the trial court found, by clear and convincing evidence, that termination of the parental relationship between Braynon and Catherine and the child was in the child's best interest. The decree further stated that the trial court found, by clear and convincing evidence, that Braynon and Catherine "ha[d] engaged in conduct or knowingly placed the child with persons who engaged in conduct which endangers the physical or emotional well-being of the child."
Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(1)(E) (Vernon Supp. 2005).
Catherine's counsel has affirmed to this Court, in his brief and in a separate filing, that he delivered a copy of the brief to Catherine at her last known address and that he has advised Catherine of her right to obtain the record and transcript in this case and file a pro se response. See Sowels v. State, 45 S.W.3d 690, 693 (Tex.App.-Waco 2001, no pet.). Catherine has not filed a pro se response or a motion requesting an extension of time to file a response with this Court.
We have reviewed counsel's brief and hold that counsel has met the briefing requirements set forth in Anders: the brief sets forth a professional evaluation of the record and states why there are no arguable issues to assert on appeal. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400. We have reviewed the entire record and concur with counsel's evaluation concerning the sufficiency of the evidence in support of these findings and also conclude that there are no arguable grounds for appeal. We affirm the trial court's decree.
Counsel has also filed a motion to withdraw as counsel for Catherine. We grant the motion to withdraw. However, counsel still has a duty to inform Catherine of the result of this appeal and also to inform her that she may, on her own, pursue a petition for review in the Supreme Court of Texas. See In re K.D., 127 S.W.3d 66, 68 n. 3 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, no pet.).
Conclusion
We affirm the judgment of the trial court. We have reviewed the entire record, and we hold that there are no arguable grounds for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the order of the trial court, and we grant counsel's motion to withdraw.