From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re C.M.S.

Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
May 27, 2021
NO. 09-21-00009-CV (Tex. App. May. 27, 2021)

Opinion

NO. 09-21-00009-CV

05-27-2021

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., 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 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).

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).

C.M.S. and D.R.F. II have different fathers. Neither father appealed. D.R.F. II's father signed an affidavit of voluntary relinquishment. C.M.S.'s father testified that he wanted to relinquish his rights but did not sign an affidavit and does not appeal. --------

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.

/s/_________

CHARLES KREGER

Justice Submitted on April 21, 2021
Opinion Delivered May 27, 2021 Before Golemon, C.J., Kreger, and Johnson, JJ.


Summaries of

In re C.M.S.

Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
May 27, 2021
NO. 09-21-00009-CV (Tex. App. May. 27, 2021)
Case details for

In re C.M.S.

Case Details

Full title:IN THE INTEREST OF C.M.S. AND D.R.F. II

Court:Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

Date published: May 27, 2021

Citations

NO. 09-21-00009-CV (Tex. App. May. 27, 2021)