IN THE INTEREST OF E.K. AND C.K., MINOR CHILDREN
the 85th District Court Brazos County, Texas Trial Court No.
Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Neill (Chief
Justice Gray concurring) [*]
E. NEILL Justice
K. appeals from the trial court's judgment that
terminated the parent-child relationship between him and his
children, E.K. and C.K. 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.
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).
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.
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
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