### 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. 03-18-00454- CV

R. M., 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 CO MAL CO UNTY, 22ND J UDICIAL DI STRICT NO. C2017 -08 02A, H ONO RAB LE DIB WALDRIP , JUDGE P RESIDING

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

R.M. appea ls from the trial co u rt ’s order terminating his pare ntal rig hts to his
children. See Tex. F am. Code § 161.001. Following a de novo trial, the trial court found by clea r 1 and convincing evidence that statutory g rounds for terminating R.M.’s pare ntal rig hts exis ted and
that termination was in the c hildren’s be st interest. See id. § 161.001(b)( 1) (E) , (N), ( O), (P), ( 2).

On appea l, R.M.’s court-a ppointed attorne y h a s f

il e d 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.—Austin 2005, pet. denied) (applying Anders proce dure in appea l from termination of pare ntal rig hts). The brie f mee ts the require ments of Anders by prese nting a profe ssional e valuation of the

We ref er to appellant, who is the fathe r, by his initials only

. See Tex. Fam. Code 1 § 109.002(d); Te x . R. App. P. 9.8.rec ord demonstrating why there are n o ar gu able gr ounds to be advance d on appea l. See 386 U.S.

at 744; Taylor , 160 S.W .3d at 646–47. Appellant’s counsel has cert i fi ed t o t his Court that she provided R.M. with a copy of the Anders brief and motion to 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 Fa

mily and
Protective Service s has filed a response to t h e A n der s brief, stating that it will not file a response
unless it deems a brief nece ssary afte r the revie w of any pro se response or reque st from this Court. To date, R.M. has not filed a pro se br ief. 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). We have revie wed the entire rec ord, including the Anders brief submitt ed on R.M.’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 R.M.’s pare ntal rig hts. We deny counsel’s motion to withdraw. 2

See In re P.M. , 520 S.W .3d 24 (Tex. 2016) (per curia m). I n In re P.M. , the Texas Supreme 2 Court held that the rig ht to counsel in suits seeking the termination of pare ntal rig hts extends to “all proce eding s in [the Texas Supre me Court] , including the filing of a petition for revie w.” Id. at 27. Acc ording ly , counsel’ s o b l i gat i on to R.M. has not y et been discharg ed. See id. I f R.M., afte r consulting with counsel, desires to file a petition for revie w, counsel should timel y file with the Texas Supreme Court “a petition for revie w that satisfies the standards for an Anders brief.” See id. at 27–28.
2_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Melissa Goodwin, Jus tice

Be fore J ustices Pury ear , Goodwin, and B ourland
Affir med
Filed: Oc tober 10, 2018

3