### 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. 03-18-00542- CV

S. P., A ppellan t

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

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F LAMP ASAS CO UNTY, 27TH JUDICI AL DISTRICT

NO. 206 98, H ONO RAB LE CHERY LL MAB RAY, JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
Appellant S.P. appea ls from the trial court’s order terminating her pare ntal rig hts to her child. See Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001. Following a bench trial, the trial court enter ed judgme nt finding by clea

r and convincing evidenc e that statutory g rounds exis ted for termi nating S.P.’s
pare ntal rig hts and that termination was in the child’s best interest. See id. § 1 6 1

. 0 0 1 (b )( 1 )(K), (b)( 2). Appellant’s court-a ppointed counsel has filed a brief concludi n g t h at the appea l is frivolous and without merit. See Anders v. Calif o r n i a , 3 8 6 U.S. 738, 744 (1967); In re P.M. , 520 S.W .3d 24, 27 & n.10 (Tex. 2016) (per curia m) (appr oving use of Anders proce dure in appea ls from termination of pare ntal rig hts beca use it “strikes an important balanc e betwee n the defe ndant’s constitutional rig ht to counsel on appea l and counsel’s obliga tion not to prosec ute frivolous appea ls” (c i tations omitted)). The brief meets the require ments of Anders by prese nting a profe ss i o n alevalua tion of the rec ord and demonstrating why there are no arg uable g rounds to b e ad vance d

o n appea l. See 386 U.S. at 744; Taylor v. Texas Dep’ t of Protective & Regulato r y S er vs
. , 160 S.W .3d 641, 646–47 (Tex. App.—Austin 2005, p et

. denied) (apply ing Anders proce dure in
pare ntal-termination case ). Appellant’s counsel has cer tified to this Court that he has made diligent eff orts to provide his client with a copy of the Anders brief and information reg arding how she may obtain a copy of the rec ord as well as her rig ht to file a pro se brief. The Depa rtment of Family and Protective Service s has filed a re s p o n s e to the Anders brief, waiving its rig ht to file an appellee ’s b ri ef unless reque sted by this Court or as neede d to respond to any pro se brief filed by appellan t

. To date, no pr o se brief

has bee n filed.
We have conducte d a full examination of all of the proce eding s to deter mine whether the appea l is wholly frivolous, as we must when prese nted with an Anders brief. See Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 7 5 , 8 0 (1988). After revie wing the rec ord and the Anders brief, we find nothing in the

rec ord that would arg uably support S.P.’s appea l. We ag ree with appellant’ s counsel that the appea l is frivolous and without merit. Acc ording ly , we aff irm the trial court’s order terminating the pare ntal rig hts of S.P. W e deny

counsel’s motion to withdraw. 1

The Tex as S upreme Court has held that the right to counsel i n suits seeking termination 1 of pare ntal rig hts extends to “ all proce eding s [i n the Texas Supreme Court] , including the filing of a petition for r eview.” In re P.M. , 520 S.W .3d 24, 27–28 (Tex. 2016) (per curia m). Acc ording ly , counsel’s obliga tions to S.P. have not y et been discharg ed. See id. I f afte r consulting with counsel appellant desires to file a petition for revie w, her counsel should timely file with the Texas Supreme Court “a pe tition for review that satisfies the standa rds for a n Anders brief.” See id. 2__________________________________________ David Pury ear , J ustice
Be fore J ustices Pury ear , Goodwin, and B ourland Affir med Filed: De cembe r 4, 2018

3