In the Interest of M.H. v. the State of Texas

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

________________

NO. 09-23-00195-CV
________________

IN THE INTEREST OF M.H.

________________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 279th District Court
Jefferson County, Texas
Trial Cause No. F-241,965
________________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her child,

Max.1 See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001. The trial court found, by clear and

convincing evidence, that statutory grounds exist for termination and that

termination is in the best interest of the child. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. §

161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), (O), (2).2

1
To protect the minor child’s identity, we refer to him by a pseudonym. See
Tex. R. App. P. 9.8(b)(2).
2
The trial court also terminated Father’s rights, but Father did not appeal the
termination.
1
Appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel submitted a brief in which

counsel contends there are no meritorious issues for appeal. See Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); In re L.D.T., 161 S.W.3d 728, 731 (Tex. App.—

Beaumont 2005, no pet.). Counsel contemporaneously filed a motion to withdraw.

The brief provides counsel’s professional evaluation of the record, discusses the

evidence at trial and the applicable legal standard, the trial court’s ruling, and why

the trial court’s ruling is supported by sufficient evidence. Counsel concludes there

are no arguable grounds to be advanced on appeal. Counsel certified that Appellant

was served with a copy of the Anders brief. On September 18, 2023, this Court

notified Appellant of her right to file a pro se response, as well as the October 19,

2023 deadline for doing so. This Court received no pro-se response from Appellant.

We have independently reviewed the entire record and counsel’s brief, and

we conclude that there are no arguable grounds for review, that no reversible error

exists, and that Appellant’s appeal is frivolous. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744

(emphasizing that the reviewing court—and not counsel—determines, after full

examination of proceedings, whether the appeal is wholly frivolous). As a result, we

affirm the trial court’s termination of Appellant’s parental rights. We further find no

arguable error requiring us to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief this

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

2
But we deny the motion to withdraw because this is a parental termination

case and counsel’s motion to withdraw does not show “good cause” for withdrawal.

See In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 (Tex. 2016) (In a parental termination case when

the attorney files an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw, “an Anders motion to

withdraw brought in the court of appeals, in the absence of additional grounds for

withdrawal, may be premature.”). An attorney appointed under section

107.013(a)(1) of the Texas Family Code continues to represent an indigent parent as

outlined under section 107.016 of the Texas Family Code until the earliest of either

the date the suit is dismissed, the date that all appeals in relation to any final order

terminating parental rights are exhausted or waived, or the date the attorney is

relieved of the attorney’s duties or replaced by another attorney after a finding of

good cause is rendered by the court on the record. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. §§

107.013(a)(1), 107.016(2); In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d at 27-28. 3

AFFIRMED.
JAY WRIGHT
Justice

Submitted on November 14, 2023
Opinion Delivered November 30, 2023

Before Golemon, C.J., Johnson and Wright, JJ.

3
We note that if Appellant decides to pursue review by the Supreme Court of
Texas, counsel may satisfy his obligations to Appellant “by filing a petition for
review that satisfies the standards for an Anders brief.” In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24,
27 (Tex. 2016).
3