In re E.K.

          From the 85th District Court Brazos County, Texas Trial Court No. 17-001881-CV-85

          Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Neill (Chief Justice Gray concurring) ^[*]

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          JOHN E. NEILL Justice

         Jesse K. appeals from the trial court's judgment that terminated the parent-child relationship between him and his children, E.K. and C.K.^[1] After hearing all the evidence, the jury the jury found by clear and convincing evidence that the parental rights of Jesse K. should be terminated. The trial court signed an order of termination in accordance with the jury verdict. We affirm.

         In presenting this appeal, counsel for Jesse K. filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California asserting that he has 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).

         The brief filed meets 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, Jesse K.'s attorney advised him that he had filed the brief pursuant to Anders, that Jesse K. had the right to review the record and file a pro se response on his own behalf, and provided Jesse K. with a copy of the record. Jesse K. filed a response asking this Court to overturn trial court's order terminating his parental rights to E.K. and C.K. Jesse K. complains that the Department used false evidence during the jury trial and that the Department did not seek the best interest of the children.

         The order of termination recites that the jury was given the following instruction with respect to Jesse K.:

For the parent-child relationship in this case to be terminated with respect to [Jesse K.], the father of the children, [E.K. and C.K.], it must be proven by clear and convincing evidence that at least one of the following events has occurred:

1. [Jesse K.] knowingly placed or knowingly allowed the child to remain in conditions or surroundings which endangered the physical or emotional well-being of the child.

2. [Jesse K.] engaged in conduct or knowingly placed the child with persons who engaged in conduct which endangered the physical or emotional well-being of the child.

3. [Jesse K.] 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 child 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 child's removal from the parent.

In addition, it must be proven by clear and convincing evidence that termination of the parent-child relationship would be in the best interest of the child. Some factors to consider in determining the best interest of the child are:

1. the desires of the child;

2. the emotional and physical needs of the child, now and in ...