Opinion issued January 23, 2018

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-17-00613-CV

———————————

IN THE INTEREST OF J.A.J.H. AND J.A.H., CHILDREN

On Appeal from the 309th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 2015-24656

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This is an appeal from the trial court’s final Decree for Termination in a suit 

brought by the Department of Family and Protective Services to terminate the 

parent-child relationship between the father and J.A.H.M. and J.A.H (“the 

children”). In its decree, the trial court established the father’s paternity, terminated 

his parental rights, and appointed DFPS as sole managing conservator of the 
2

children. The father filed a notice of appeal, and the trial court appointed counsel on 

his behalf to prosecute the appeal. The father’s court-appointed appellate counsel 

has moved to withdraw, stating that, in her professional opinion, the appeal is 

without merit and that there are no arguable grounds for reversal. See Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967).

Anders procedures are appropriate in an appeal from a trial court’s final order 

in a parental-rights termination suit. In re K.D., 127 S.W.3d 66, 67 (Tex. App.—

Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, no pet.). Counsel has certified that she delivered a copy of 

the brief to the father and informed him of his right to examine the appellate record 

and to file a response. See id. at 408. The father did not file a response.

The brief submitted by the father’s appointed appellate counsel states her 

professional opinion that no arguable 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 requirements 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. 

When we receive an Anders brief from an appointed attorney who asserts that 

no arguable grounds for appeal exist, we determine independently whether arguable 

grounds exist 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. 
3

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., 135 S.W.3d 326, 330 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, no pet.). 

If we determine that arguable grounds for appeal exist, we abate the appeal and 

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. 

On the other hand, if our independent review of the record leads us to conclude 

that the appeal is frivolous, we may affirm the trial court’s judgment by issuing an 

opinion in which we explain that we have reviewed the record and find no reversible 

error. See id.

We have reviewed the record and, having found no reversible error, we affirm 

the trial court’s judgment but deny counsel’s motion to withdraw. See In re P.M., 

520 S.W.3d 24, 27 (Tex. 2016); In re A.M., No. 01-16-00130-CV, 2016 WL 

4055030, at *6 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] July 28, 2016, no. pet.). Counsel’s 

duty to her client extends through the exhaustion or waiver of “all appeals.” TEX.

FAM. CODE ANN. § 107.016(2)(B) (West 2014). If the father chooses to pursue an 

appeal to the Supreme Court of Texas, “appointed counsel’s obligations can be 

satisfied by filing a petition for review that satisfies the standards for an Anders

brief.” P.M., 520 S.W.3d at 27–28.
4

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Higley and Bland.