If no lawyer is listed, call 918-582-6422 and MoreLaw will help you find a lawyer for free.

Description: Beaumont, Texas family law lawyer represented Defendant in resisting the effort by the State of Texas to terminate her parental rights.


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.). 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 April 19, 2022, this Court notified Appellant of her right to file a pro se response, as well as the May 19, 2022 deadline for doing so. This Court received no pro-se response from the 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 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).
In re J.L. (Tex. App. 2022)

Outcome: Affirmed

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: