## In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

_ _ _________________________ No. 02

- 19

- 00067

- CV

___________________________

On Appeal from the 211th District Court Denton County, Texas Trial Court No. 17

- 7613

- 211
Before Sudderth, C.J.; Birdwell and Bassel, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Sudderth 

### I N THE 

### I NTEREST OF 

### B.M., A 

### C HILD2 MEMORANDUM OPINION Based on a jury ve rdict, the trial court terminated the paren t

- child relationship
between Appellant N.M. ( Mother ) and her son , B.M. See Te x . Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(b)(1) (D), (E) , (M), ( O ), (2). Mother appeals th at final ord er . Her court

appointed appellate counsel file d a motion to withdraw as cou nsel a nd a brief in support of that motion. See Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967) ; In
re P.M. , 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 (Tex. 2016). Counsel ’ s brief and motion m e et the requirements of Anders by presenting a professional evaluation of th e rec ord demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for relief. See 386 U.S. at 741

– 42,
87 S. Ct. at 1 399

. Further, counsel and this court informed Mother of her right to

re q uest the record and to file a pro se response. See Kelly v. State , 436 S.W .3d 3 13,
319

– 2 1 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) ; In re S.P. , 509 S.W.3d 552, 559 (Tex. App.

— El Paso 2016, no pet.)

. Mother filed a pro se respon se challenging the legal and factual
suffici ency of the evidence supporting all the grounds of termination found by the jury

. See Te x . Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(b)(1) (D), (E) , (M), ( O ), (2). The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services did not file a brief

. As the r eviewing appellate cour t, we must independently examine t he record to
decide whether counsel is correct in determining that an appeal in this case is
frivolous. See P.M. , 520 S.W.3d at 28 , n.14 ; Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991)

. Having careful ly re viewed the record , the Anders brief, and
Mother ’ s pro se response, we agree with counsel that this appeal is frivolous. See In re3

K.R.C. , 346 S.W.3d 618, 619 ( T ex. App.

— El Paso 2009, no pet.). We find nothing in the record that might a rguably suppo rt Mot her ’ s appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the
trial court ’ s final order. As for appoi nted counsel ’ s motion to withdraw, w e deny it i n light of P.M. because the brief does not show “good cause” other than counsel ’ s determination that an appeal woul d be frivolou s. See 520 S.W.3d at 27 (“[A]n Anders motion t o withdraw brought in the court of appeals, in the absence of additional gro unds for withdrawal, may be premature.”); In re A.M. , 495 S.W.3d 573, 582 n.2 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 2016, pets. denied) (not ing that sin ce P.M. was handed down, “ most cour ts of appeals affirming parental t ermination orders after receiving Anders b riefs have denied the attorney ’ s motion to withdraw”). The supreme court has held that when
intermediate appellate courts affirm And ers termination cas es, “appointe d counsel ’ s obl igations [i n the supreme court] ca n be satisfied by filing a petition for review that
satisfies the standards for an Ander s brief.” P.M. , 520 S.W.3d at 27

– 28.

/s/ Bonnie Sudderth Bonnie Sudderth Chief Justic e Delivered: Augu st 15, 2019