Opinion issued January 23, 2018

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01 - 17 - 00 613 - CV

——————————— IN THE INTEREST OF J.A.J.H. AND J.A.H. , CHILD REN On Appeal from the 3 09th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Ca se No. 201 5 - 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 decre e, the trial court established the father’s paternity, terminated his parental rights, and appointed DFPS as sole managing conservator of the2

children. The father filed a notice of appeal, and the trial court appointed counsel on his behalf to prosecute th e appeal. The father’s court

- appointed appellate counsel has moved to withdraw, stating that, in her professional opinion, the a ppeal 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 deli vered 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 p rofessional 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 o f 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 a ppeal 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, 201 0, 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 th e 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 judg ment 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 h er client extends through the ex haustion or waiver of “all appeals.” T EX . F AM . C ODE A NN . § 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.