In the Interest of H.M. v. the State of Texas ( 2023 )

In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
__________________
NO. 09-22-00426-CV
__________________
IN THE INTEREST OF H.M.
__________________________________________________________________
On Appeal from the 317th District Court
Jefferson County, Texas
Trial Cause No. C-240,693
__________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Father appeals an order terminating his parent-child relationship
with his one-year-old daughter, H.M. (Hailey). 1 Father’s parental rights
were terminated after the trial court found by clear and convincing
evidence in a trial before the bench that he:
1To protect the identities of Father and H.M., we use pseudonyms
in the opinion in place of names. See Tex. R. App. P. 9.8(a), (b). The trial
court’s findings of facts show that Hailey’s mother is deceased.
1
(1) knowingly placed or knowingly allowed Hailey to remain in
conditions or surroundings that endangered her physical or
emotional well-being;
(2) engaged in conduct or knowingly placed Hailey with persons
who engaged in conduct that endangered her physical or
emotional well-being;
(3) constructively abandoned Hailey, who had been in the
permanent or temporary managing conservatorship of the
Department of Family and Protective Services for not less than
six months; and
(4) failed to comply with the provisions of a court order establishing
the actions Father was required to follow for Hailey to be
returned after she was placed in Department care for not less
than nine months after being removed from her home for abuse
or neglect. 2
In addition to the above findings, the trial court found by clear and
convincing evidence that terminating Father’s parent-child relationship
with Hailey is in Hailey’s best interest.
After Father perfected his appeal, his court-appointed attorney
filed a brief. The brief the attorney filed provides the attorney’s
professional evaluation of the record and asserts that no arguable
2See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), (N), (O).
2
grounds exist to support Father’s appeal. 3 The attorney certified that she
sent Father a copy of the brief she filed in his appeal.
After Father’s brief was filed with the Court, the Clerk of the Ninth
Court of Appeals notified Father that he had until March 6, 2023, to file
a pro se response. But the appellate record demonstrates Father did not
file a response.
We have independently reviewed the record. Based on our review,
we find Father’s appeal to be frivolous. Accordingly, we need not appoint
another attorney to re-brief the appeal. 4
For the above reasons, the trial court’s judgment is
AFFIRMED.
_________________________
HOLLIS HORTON
Justice
Submitted on April 3, 2023
Opinion Delivered June 1, 2023
Before Horton, Johnson and Wright, JJ.
3See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); In the Int. of L.D.T.,
161 S.W.3d 728, 731 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2005, no pet.).
4Cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).
3