In the Interest of A.C. v. the State of Texas

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-23-00141-CV
__________________

IN THE INTEREST OF A.C.
__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 317th District Court
Jefferson County, Texas
Trial Cause No. C-241,267
__________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Following a trial to the bench, the trial court terminated Mother’s

relationship with A.C., whom we will call Anna, their eighteen-month-

old child. 1 After the trial court signed the order terminating Anna’s

relationship with her Mother, Mother filed her notice of appeal. 2

1We have used pseudonyms to protect the identity of the minor. See

Tex. R. App. P. 9.8(a), (b). The trial court signed an interlocutory order
that terminated Father’s parent-child relationship with Anna three
months before the trial to the bench when Father failed to appear after
being “duly and properly notified” by the Department of Family and
Protective Services of the suit.
2While Father didn’t appeal from the interlocutory order the trial

court signed when it terminated his parental rights to Anna based on his
1
As to Mother, in its final order states the trial found by clear and

convincing evidence “that Mother has knowingly placed or allowed

[Anna] to remain in conditions that endangered her well-being and

engaged in conduct or knowingly placed [Anna] with persons who

engaged in conduct which endanger[ed Anna’s] physical or emotional

well-being[.]” 3 The trial court also found that terminating the parent-

child relationship between Mother and Anna is in Anna’s best interest. 4

On appeal, Mother’s court-appointed attorney filed a brief. The

brief provides the Court with a professional evaluation of the record.

According to Mother’s brief, no arguable grounds exist to support

Mother’s appeal. 5 Mother’s attorney also provided the Court with a letter

that she represents she sent to Mother upon filing the brief. The

attorney’s letter says that the attorney provided Mother with a copy of

failure to appear in response to the Department’s suit, we note the order
the trial court signed terminating Mother’s rights in May 2023 contains
language of finality. Thus, Father had the right to appeal from the trial
court’s May 2023 order terminating Mother’s rights, as it denies all relief
“not expressly granted[.]”
3See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E).
4Id. § 161.001(b)(2).
5See Anders 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.).
2
the letter, the brief, the Reporter’s Record, and the Clerk’s Record that

were filed in her appeal.

After receiving the Anders brief, the Clerk of the Ninth Court of

Appeals notified Mother she had until September 21, 2023, to file a pro

se response with the court. Yet the appellate record shows that Mother

did not file a response after the Court sent her this notice.

We have independently reviewed the appellate record. Based on

that review, we find Mother’s appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we need

not appoint another attorney to re-brief the appeal. 6

Accordingly, the trial court’s final order is

AFFIRMED.

HOLLIS HORTON
Justice

Submitted on October 12, 2023
Opinion Delivered October 19, 2023

Before Horton, Johnson and Wright, JJ.

6Cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).

3