### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-16-00064- CV

F . M. F .-C., Appellant

v. Texas Depart m ent of Fam ily and P rote ctive Service s, Appellee

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F TRAVIS CO UNTY, 200 TH JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. D-1 -F M- 14- 0056 53, H ONO RAB LE LO RA J. LI VINGSTO N, JUDGE P RESIDING

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

. F.-C. appea ls from the trial court’s order terminating his pare ntal rig hts to hi s minor child, F.M.F

. See Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001. Following a termination hear ing, the trial court 1
found by clea

r and convincing evidenc e that statutory g rounds for terminating F.M.F .-C.’s pare ntal rig hts exis ted and that termination was in the child’s best interest. S ee id. §§ 161.001(1)( D), (N), (O), ( 2).
On appea l, F.M.F .-C.’s court-a ppointed attorney has filed a motion to withdraw and

a brief concluding that the appea l is frivolous and without merit. See Anders v. Calif ornia , 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967); Taylor v. Texas Dep’ t of Protective & Regulatory Servs. , 160 S.W .3d 641,
646–47 (Tex. App.— Au s t i n 2005, pet. denied) (apply ing Anders proce dure in appea l from termination of pare ntal rig hts). The brief meets the re q u i reme nts of Anders by prese nting a

We ref er to the fathe r and his child by their initials only

. See Tex. Fam. Cod e 1 § 109.002(d); Te x . R. App. P. 9.8.profe ssional evalua tion of the rec ord demonstrating why there are no arg uable g ro u n d s t o be

advanc ed on appea l. See 386 U.S. at 744; Taylor , 160 S.W .3d at 646–47. Appellant’s counsel has

ce rt i fi ed t o this Court that he provided F.M.F .-C. with a copy of the Anders brief and motion t o withdraw as counsel and informed him of his rig ht to examine the appellate rec ord and to file a pro

se brief. The Depa

rtment of Family and Protective Service s has filed a response to the Anders brief waiving its rig ht to file an appellee ’s brief unless F.M.F .-C. files a pro se brief. To date, F.M.F .-C. has not filed a pr o se brief

. Upon rec eiving an Anders brief, we must conduct a full ex am i n ation of all of the
proce eding s to deter

mine whether the appea l is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988). W e have revie wed the e ntire re cord, inc luding the Anders brief submitted on F.M.F .-C.’s behalf , and have found nothing that would arg uably support an appea l. We ag ree that the appea l is frivolous and without merit. Acc ording ly , we aff irm the trial court’s order terminating F.M.F .-C.’s
pare ntal rig hts. W e deny counsel’s motion to withdraw. 2

See In re P.M. , No. 15-0171, ___ S.W .3d ___, 2016 Tex. L EXI S 236 (Tex. Apr. 1, 2016) 2 (per curia m). I n In re P.M. , the Texas Supreme Court held that the rig ht to counsel in suits seeking t h e termination of pare ntal rig hts extends to “all proce eding s in [t he Texas Supreme Court] , including the filing of a p etition for revie w.” Id. at *7–8. Acc ording ly , counsel’s obliga tion to F.M.F .-C. has not y et been discharg ed. See id. I f F.M.F .-C., afte r consulting with counsel, desires to file a petition for revie w, counsel should timely file with the Texas Supreme Court “a petition for revie w that satisfies the standa rds for a n Anders brief.” See id. 2_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Melissa Goodwin, Jus tice
Be fore J ustices Pury ear , Goodwin, and F ield
Affir med Filed: June 2, 2016

3