Opinion
No. 10-20-00089-CV
07-22-2020
IN THE INTEREST OF L.B.K.A., A CHILD
From the 82nd District Court Falls County, Texas
Trial Court No. 40498
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Aiesha P. appeals from an order that terminated the parent-child relationship between her and her child, L.B.K.A. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 161.001. Aiesha's appointed counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California asserting that the appeal presents no issues of arguable merit. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967). The procedures set forth in Anders are applicable to appeals of orders terminating parental rights. In re E.L.Y., 69 S.W.3d 838, 841 (Tex. App.—Waco 2002, order). Counsel advised Aiesha that counsel had filed the brief pursuant to Anders and that Aiesha had the right to review the record and file a pro se response on her own behalf. Counsel also provided Aiesha with a copy of the record. Aiesha did not file a response with this Court.
Counsel included a detailed recitation of the facts in the Anders brief and asserted that counsel reviewed the trial court's jurisdiction and the record for any potentially meritorious issues and determined there is no non-frivolous issue to raise in this appeal. Counsel's brief discusses the sufficiency of the evidence relating to Section 161.001(b)(1)(E) which was one ground of the six on which the termination was granted as well as the best interest of the child. Counsel's brief evidences a professional evaluation of the record, and we conclude that counsel performed the duties required of appointed counsel. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406-408 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).
Upon the filing of the Anders brief, as the reviewing appellate court, it is our duty to independently examine the record to decide whether counsel is correct in determining that an appeal is frivolous. See In the Interest of G.P., 503 S.W.3d 531, 536 (Tex. App.—Waco 2016, pet. denied). Arguments are frivolous when they "cannot conceivably persuade the court." McCoy v. Court of Appeals, 486 U.S. 429, 436, 108 S. Ct. 1895, 100 L. Ed. 2d 440 (1988).
Having carefully reviewed the entire record and the Anders brief, we agree with counsel that the appeal is frivolous. See In re D.D., 279 S.W.3d 849, 850 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2009, pet. denied). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's order of termination.
CONCLUSION
Having found no meritorious issues presented in this appeal, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
TOM GRAY
Chief Justice Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Neill
Affirmed
Opinion delivered and filed July 22, 2020
CV06