### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03
- 22
- 00462
- CV

E. L. , Appellant

v. Department of Family and Protective Services , Appellee

FROM THE 459TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY NO. D
- 1
- FM
- 20
- 006077 , THE HONORABLE CLEVE WESTON DOTY , J UDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

E.L. appeals from the trial court ’ s order terminating her parental rights to her daughter T.C. See Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001

. After a jury trial, the trial court rendered judgment finding by clear a n d convincing evidence that several statutory grounds existed for

term inating E.L. ’ s parental rights and that termination was in the child ’ s best interest. See id. § 161.001(b)(1) (E), (M), (O), (P) , (R) , (b)(2)

.

E.L. ’ s court

- appointed counsel has filed a brief concluding that the appeal is
frivolous and without merit. See Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967) ; In re P.M. , 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 & n.10 (Tex. 2016) (per curiam) (approving use of Anders procedure in appeals from termination of parental r ights because it “strikes an important balance between the
defendant ’ s constitutional right to counsel on appeal and counsel ’ s obligation not to prosecute frivolous appeals” (citations omitted)). The brief meets the requirements of Anders by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating why there are no arguable2

grounds to be advanced on appeal. See 386 U.S. at 744 ; Taylor v. Texas Dep ’ t of Protective & Regulatory Servs. , 160 S.W.3d 641, 646

- 47 (Tex. App.

— Austin 2005, pet. denied) ( applying
Anders procedure in parental

- termination case). E.L. ’ s co unsel has certified to this Court that he has provided her with a copy of the Anders brief and informed her of her right to receive a copy of the entire appellate record and file a pro se b rief. The Department of Family and Protective
Services has filed a response to the Anders brief, waiving its right to file an appellee ’ s brief

. To date, E.L. has not filed a pro se brief.

We have conducted a full examina tion of all of the proceedings to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous, as we must when presented with an Anders brief. See
Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988)

. We have specifically reviewed the trial court ’ s findings

as to E.L. under part (E) of subsection 161.001(b)( 1 ) of the Family Code , and we have found no

non
- frivolous issues that could be raised on appeal with respect to th at finding

. See In re N.G. , 577 S.W.3d 230, 237 (Tex. 2019) ( explaining due process and due course of la w considerations pertaining to terminati on s under sectio n 161.001(b)(1)(D) or (E) of Family Code ). After reviewing the record and the Anders brief, we find nothing in the record that would arg uably support E.L. ’ s appeal. We agree with E.L. ’ s counsel that the appeal is frivolous and without

mer it. Accordingly , we affirm the trial court ’ s order terminating E.L. ’ s parental rights

. We deny
counsel ’ s motion to withdraw. 1

1 The Texas Supreme Court has held that the right to couns el in suits seek ing termination of parental rights extends to “all proceedings [in the Texas Supreme Court], including the filing of a petition for review.” In re P. M. , 520 S.W.3d 24, 27

- 28 (Tex. 2016) (per curiam). Accordingly, counsel ’ s obligations to E .L. have not yet be en discharged. See id. If after consulting with counsel E.L. desires to file a petition for review, her counsel should timely file with the Te xas Supreme Court “a petition for review that satisfies the standards for an Anders brief.” See id.3 __________________________________________ Thomas J. Baker , Justice
Before Justices Goodwin , Baker, and Kelly
Affirmed
Filed: November 18, 2022