Opinion issued December 5 , 201 3

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

____________ NO. 01
- 13
- 00558
- CV

____________ IN THE INTEREST OF M.A. , a child

On Appeal from the 315 th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 201 2
- 01475J MEMORANDUM OPINION The trial court terminated appellant Jessica Anderson ’s parental rights to M.A., her child . Appellant’s court

- appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw along with a brief stating his professional opinion that the appeal is without merit and that there are no arguable grounds for reversal. See Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 7 38, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967). We have reviewed the record2

and, having found no reversible error, w e grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment

. Anders proc edures are appropriate in parental

- rights termination cases . In re
K.D. , 127 S.W.3d 66, 67 (Tex. App.

— Hous ton [1st Dist.] 2003, no pet.). An attorney has an ethical obligation to refuse to prosecute a frivolous appeal. In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). If an appointed attorney finds a case to be wholly frivolous, his obligation to his client is to seek leave to withdraw. Id

. Counsel’s obligation to the appellate court is to assure it, through an Anders brief, that, after a complete review of the record, the request to withdraw is

w ell

- founded. Id . Here, counsel has certified that he delivered a copy of the brief to appella nt and informed appellant of her right to examine the appellate record and to file a response. See Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 408. The brief submitted by appellant ’s appointed appellate counsel states his professional opinion that no argu able grounds for reversal exist and that any appeal would therefore lack merit. See Anders , 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400. Counsel's brief meets the minimum Anders requirement s by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and stating why there are no arguable grounds for reversal on appeal. See id. at 744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400; Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 409 n. 23. This Court notified appellant of her right to review the record and to file
a pro se response. Appellant did not file a response.3

When we re ceive an Anders brief from an appellant’s appointed attorney who asserts that no arguable grounds for appeal exist, we must determine that issue indepe ndently by conducting our own review of the entire record. Johnson v. Dep’t of Family & Protective Servs. , No. 01

- 08

- 00749

- CV, 2010 WL 5186806, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] Dec. 23, 2010, no pet.); see In re K.D. , 127 S.W.3d at 67; In re D.E.S. , 1 35 S.W.3d 326, 330 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, no pet.)

. Thus, our role in this appeal is to determine whether arguable grounds for appeal exist. See id. at 827. If we determine that arguable grounds for appeal exist, we abate the appeal an d remand the case to the trial court to allow the appointed attorney to withdraw. See id. Then, the trial court appoints another attorney to present all arguable grounds for appeal. See id. “Only after the issues have been briefed by new counsel may [w e] address the merits of the issues raised.” Id. On the other hand, if our independent review of the record leads us to conclude that the appeal is wholly frivolous, we may affirm the trial court's judgment by issuing an opinion in which we explain that w e have reviewed the record and find no reversi ble error. Id. Although we may issue an opinion explaining why the appeal lacks arguable merit, we are not required to do so. See
Garner v. State , 300 S.W.3d 763, 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009). Appellant may4

challenge the holding that there are no arguable grounds for appeal by petitioning for review in the Supreme Court of Texas. See id. at 827 & n. 6. Following Anders , we have r eviewed the record and counsel’ s Anders brief

. We conclude t hat no reversible er ror exists. Consequently, we affirm the judgment of th e trial court and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw

. 1 Attorney Stephen M. Pierce must immediately send the notice required by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 6.5(c) and file a copy of the notice wi th the Clerk of this Court. See
T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 6.5(c). PER CURIAM Panel consists of Chief Justice Sherry Radack, and Justices Bland and Huddle

.

1 Appointed counsel still has a duty to inform appellant of the result of this appeal and notify appellant that she may, on h er own, pursue a petition for review in the Su preme Court of Texas

. In re K.D. , 127 S.W.3d at 6 8 n. 3

.