In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
NO. 09-26-00102-CV
IN THE INTEREST OF T.L.F.
On Appeal from the 279th District Court
Jefferson County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 24DCFM1659
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her child,
Tina.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), (L), (2).2
1
To protect the minor child’s identity, we refer to her by a pseudonym. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 109.002(d); Tex. R. App. P. 9.8(b)(2).
2
The trial court also terminated Father’s parental rights pursuant to Father’s execution of an unrevoked and irrevocable affidavit of relinquishment of parental
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.) (Anders procedures apply in parental-termination cases).
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 May 6, 2026, this Court notified Appellant of her right to
file a pro se response, as well as the June 5, 2026 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
rights. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(b)(1)(K), (2). Father is not a party to this appeal.
2
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).
But we deny the motion to withdraw because this 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)(B); In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d at 27-28.3
3
We note that if Appellant decides to pursue review by the Supreme Court of Texas, counsel may satisfy her 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, 27-28 (Tex. 2016).
3
Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s order terminating Mother’s parental
rights.
AFFIRMED.
JAY WRIGHT
Justice
Submitted on July 1, 2026
Opinion Delivered July 23, 2026
Before Golemon, C.J., Wright and Chambers, JJ.
4