IN THE INTEREST OF J.W. AND C.W., CHILDREN
the 74th District Court McLennan County, Texas Trial Court
Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Scoggins
W. and Karen W. appeal from a judgment that terminated the
parent-child relationship between them and their children
J.W. and C.W. In presenting this appeal, counsel for Reuben
and counsel for Karen have each filed a brief pursuant to
Anders v. California asserting that they have each
conducted a review of the record and found no arguable issues
to raise on appeal. See Anders v. California, 386
U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). We affirm.
the briefs filed meet the requirements of Anders by
presenting a professional evaluation of the record and
demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be
advanced on appeal. Additionally, Reuben's attorney
advised him that he had filed the brief pursuant to
Anders, that Reuben had the right to review the
record and file a pro se response on his own behalf, and
provided Reuben with a copy of the record. Although given the
opportunity, Reuben did not file a response with this Court.
Karen's attorney also advised her that he had filed the
brief pursuant to Anders, that she had the right to
review the record and file a pro se response on her own
behalf, and provided Karen with a copy of the record. Karen
did not file a response with this Court.
The order of termination recites that Reuben and Karen:
knowingly placed or knowingly allowed the children to remain
in conditions or surroundings which endangered the physical
or emotional well-being of the children pursuant to §
161.001 (1) (D), Texas Family Code;
engaged in conduct or knowingly placed the children with
persons who engaged in conduct which endangered the physical
or emotional well-being of the children, pursuant to §
161.001 (1) (E), Texas Family Code;
failed to comply with the provisions of a court order that
specifically established the actions necessary for the
[parent] to obtain the return of the children who had been in
the permanent or temporary managing conservatorship of the
Department of Family and Protective Services for not less
than nine months as a result of the children's removal
from the parent under Chapter 262 for the abuse and neglect
of the children, pursuant to § 161.001 (1) (O), Texas
Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(1)(D), (E), and (O) (West
Anders brief, counsel analyzes the legal and factual
sufficiency of the evidence to support termination. Counsel
acknowledges that only one statutory ground is necessary to
support an order of termination in addition to a finding that
termination is in the children's best interest. See
In re A.V., 113 S.W.3d 355, 362 (Tex. 2003). Counsel
further evaluates the legal and factual sufficiency of the
evidence to support a finding that termination was in the
best interest of the children. Counsels' briefs evidence
a professional evaluation of the record for error, and we
conclude that both counsel performed the duties required of
an appointed counsel.
process requires application of the clear and convincing
standard of proof in cases involving involuntary termination
of parental rights. In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256, 263
(Tex. 2002). Clear and convincing evidence is that measure or
degree of proof which will produce in the mind of the trier
of fact a firm belief or conviction as to the truth of the
allegations sought to be established. See Tex. Fam.
Code Ann. § 101.007 (West 2008). See also In re
C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17, 25-26 (Tex. 2002).
Family Code permits a court to order termination of parental
rights if the petitioner establishes one or more acts or
omissions enumerated under subsection (1) of the statute and
also proves that termination of the parent-child relationship
is in the best interest of the child. See Tex. Fam.
Code Ann. § 161.001 (West Supp. 2012); Holley v.
Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367, 370 (Tex. 1976). We agree with
counsels' evaluations that there is clear and convincing
evidence to support termination for both Reuben and Karen.
the sufficiency of the evidence to support termination under
section 161.001(1), we must also find clear and convincing
evidence that termination of the parent-child relationship
was in the children's best interest. See Tex.
Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(2). Evidence that proves one or
more statutory grounds for termination may also constitute
evidence illustrating that termination is in the child's
best interest. See In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d at 28.
There is a long-standing non-exhaustive ...