### Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed Ma y 12 , 2022.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14
- 21
- 00738
- CV

T.Z.M. , Appellant V. DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND PROTECTIVE SERV ICES , Appellee

On Appeal from the 313th District Court

Harris County, Tex as Tri a l Court Cause No. 2020
- 01794J

MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant T.Z.M. appeals a final order signed November 15, 2021 , terminating her parental rights to the child who is the subject of this suit

. Appellant ’ s appointed counsel filed a brief in which he conc l udes the appeal is wholly frivolous and without m erit. See Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967) ; High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807 , 811

– 13 (Tex. Crim. Ap p. 1978). The Anders procedures apply to an appeal from the termination of parental rights when an ap p ointed attorney concludes there are no non frivolous issues to assert on2



### appeal. In re D.E.S. , 135 S.W.3d 326, 329 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist. ] 2004,

n o pet.).
On Apr i l 13, 2 0 22, appellant was notified o f the right to file a pro se response to the Anders brief

. See Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); In re D.E.S. , 135 S.W.3d at 329

– 30. N o pro se response has been filed. We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel ’ s brief and agree the appeal is frivolous an d without merit. 1 

### Further, we find no r eversible error in the record.

1 We note our disagreement w ith the a rgument of appe llant ’ s coun sel that no non frivolous grounds exist on which to chal l en ge the trial court ’ s finding under Family Code section 161.001(b)(1)(M) , which provides for a predicate ground for termination of pare ntal rights when it is proven by c lear and convincin g evidence that a parent “ had his or her parent

child relationship terminated with respect to another child based on a finding that the parent's condu ct was in violation of Paragraph (D) or (E) or substantial ly equivalent provisions of th e la w of another s tate

. ” Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(b)(1)(M). While counsel argues there is no nonfrivolous ground on which to challenge that finding, a review of the record shows tha t subsection M was not pleaded as a grou nd for termination , and an obj ecti on to the lack of pleading was raised at tria l . This presents a nonfrivolous ground on which to challenge the subsection M finding. See Vasquez v. Texas Dep’t of Prot. & Reg. Servs. , 190 S.W.3d 189, 194 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, pet. denied) (“[ A] parental

- ri ghts

- termination order can be upheld only on grounds both pleaded by [DFPS] and found by the trial court.”). We conclude, however, th at there are no nonfrivolous grounds on which to challenge the trial court ’ s other predicate findings und er subsections E a nd O. Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(b)(1)( E ) , (O)

. Accordingly, counsel ’ s error does not necessitate additional bri e fing to comply with the requirements of Anders , because only one predicate finding under section 161.001(b)(1) is necessar y to support a fin al order of term ination when there is also a finding , as here, that termination is in the child’s best interest. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(b)(1). As to the endangerment finding under subsection E, while we are aware that the supre me court requires analysis of such grounds for due

- process reasons, that court has not determined whether the same level of wri tten analysis is required in Anders cases, and our court has previously declined to speci fically analyze findings under subsectio ns D, E, and M in Anders opinions

. See In re J.P. , No. 14

- 21

- 00272

- CV, 2021 WL 4164782, at *1 n.1 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] Sept. 14, 2021, pet. denied) (mem. op.) ( colle cting cases and citing In re E.K. , 608 S.W.3d 815, 815

– 16 (Tex. 2020) (Green, J., co ncurring in de nial of petition for review ) ( discussing In re N.G. , 577 S.W.3d 230 (Tex . 2019)). We o bse rve that , under the part icu lar facts of th is case, it appears no denial of due process results, given that uncontested3



### Accordingly, the final order of termination is affirmed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Christopher and Justices Bourliot and Spain

.

evidence was presented at trial that appellant ’ s parental righ ts had been terminated on endangerment g rounds in a separate case , which was later affirmed by this court. See In re J.Z.S. , No. 14

- 19

- 00755

- CV, 2020 WL 836994, at *6

– 8 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] Feb. 20, 2020, pet. denie d) (mem. op.)

. A ccordingly, regardless of our dis position of the E ground in thi s case, appellant will be subje ct to future termination of parental rights on the basis of p revious endangerment findings. Cf. N.G. , 577 S.W.3d at 234 (discussing collateral co nsequences of en dangerm ent findings under subsections D and E and interplay with subs ection M ).