In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
NO. 09-26-00179-CV
IN THE INTEREST OF C.L.C.
On Appeal from the County Court at Law
Orange County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 250229-D
MEMORANDUM OPINION
K.C. (“Kimberly”) appeals from an order terminating her parental rights to
her one-year-old son, C.L.C. (“Caleb”). 1 The trial court found, by clear and
convincing evidence, that statutory grounds exist for the termination of Kimberly’s
parental rights and that termination of her parental rights would be in the best interest
of the child. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), (I), (N), (O), (2).
1
To protect the child’s identity, we use pseudonyms to refer to the child and the parents. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 109.002(d); Tex. R. App. P. 9.8(b)(2). The trial court’s Order of Termination also terminated the child’s father’s parental rights, but the father is not a party to this appeal.
1
Kimberly’s appointed attorney submitted a brief in which she contends that
there are no meritorious issues for appeal and that the appeal is frivolous. See Anders
v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); In re L.D.T., 161 S.W.3d 728, 730-31 (Tex.
App.—Beaumont 2005, no pet.) (Anders procedures apply in parental-right
termination cases). The brief presents the attorney’s professional evaluation of the
record and explains why no arguable grounds exist to overturn the trial court’s
judgment. The attorney represented to the Court that she gave Kimberly a copy of
the Anders brief she filed, notified Kimberly of her right to file a pro se brief, and
notified Kimberly of how to access the appellate record. The Court notified
Kimberly of her right to file a pro se response and of the deadline for doing so.
Kimberly did not file a response with the Court.
We have independently evaluated the appellate record and the brief filed by
Kimberly’s court-appointed attorney. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988)
(citing Anders, 386 U.S. at 744); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2005); In re K.R.C., 346 S.W.3d 618, 619 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2009,
no pet.). Based on our review, we have found nothing that would arguably support
an appeal, and we agree that the appeal is frivolous and lacks merit. See Bledsoe,
178 S.W.3d at 827-28 (“Due to the nature of Anders briefs, by indicating in the
opinion that it considered the issues raised in the briefs and reviewed the record for
reversible error but found none, the court of appeals met the requirements of Texas
2
Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1.”); In re K.R.C., 346 S.W.3d at 619. Therefore, we
find it unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief the appeal. Cf.
Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).
Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s order terminating Kimberly’s parental
rights.2
AFFIRMED.
LEANNE JOHNSON
Justice
Submitted on September 1, 2026
Opinion Delivered September 17, 2026
Before Johnson, Wright and Chambers, JJ.
2
We note that if Appellant decides to pursue review in 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