Date: 02-19-2015

Case Style: In the Interest of V.L.L., J.L.L. and J.J.L.

Case Number: 09-14-00456-CV

Judge: Scott McKeithen

Court: Texas Court of Appeals, Ninth District on appeal from the 253rd District Court of Liberty County

Plaintiff's Attorney: Luisa P. Marrero for Texas Department of Family and Protective Services

Defendant's Attorney: Keaton Kirkwood for D.J.L

Lameka Trahan for V.L.L., J.L.L. and J.J.L.

Farrah Harper for I.L.

Description: D.J.L. appeals from an order terminating his parental rights to his minor children, V.L.L., J.L.L., and J.J.L. The trial court found, by clear and convincing evidence, that statutory grounds exist for termination of D.J.L.’s parental rights and that termination of D.J.L.’s parental rights would be in the best interest of the children. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(1)(D), (E), (O) (West 2014).
D.J.L.’s court-appointed appellate counsel submitted a brief in which counsel contends there are no arguable grounds to be advanced on 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.). The brief provides counsel’s professional evaluation of the
2
record. Counsel certified that D.J.L. was served with a copy of the Anders brief filed on
his behalf. This Court notified D.J.L. of his right to file a pro se response, as well as the
deadline for doing so. This Court did not receive a pro se response.
We have independently reviewed the appellate record and counsel’s brief, and we
agree that any appeal would be frivolous. We 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). We affirm the trial court’s order terminating
D.J.L.’s parental rights, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.1

1With respect to withdrawing from the case, counsel shall inform D.J.L. of
the outcome of this appeal and inform him that he has the right to file a petition for
review with the Texas Supreme Court. See Tex. R. App. P. 53; In the Interest of
K.D., 127 S.W.3d 66, 68 n.3 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, no pet.).

Outcome: AFFIRMED.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: