Date: 11-12-2015

Case Style: In the Interest of T.H.

Case Number: 09-15-00246-CV

Judge: Leanne Johnson

Court: Texas Court of Appeals for the Ninth Court of Appeal from County Court at Law No 3 of Montgomery County

Plaintiff's Attorney: Michael D. Becker
John C. Lockwood for Texas Department of Family and Protective Services

Defendant's Attorney: Stephanie Hall and C.H. for C.H.

Description: C.H. appeals from an order terminating her parental rights to her minor child, T.H.1 The trial court found, by clear and convincing evidence, that statutory grounds exist for termination of C.H.’s parental rights and that termination of C.H.’s parental rights would be in the best interest of the child. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(1)(E), (N), (O), (2) (West 2014).
C.H.’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.
1 To protect the identity of the minor, we use the initials for the child and the child’s mother. See Tex. R. App. P. 9.8(b)(2).
2
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 record. Counsel certified that C.H. was served with a copy of the Anders brief
filed on her behalf. This Court notified C.H. of her 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 C.H.’s parental rights, and we grant counsel’s motion to
withdraw.

Outcome: AFFIRMED

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: