T he t r i al cour t appo i nt ed coun s el t o re pres ent B ort ner pur s uan t t o Sect i on 1 0 7 .01 3 o f the F ami l y Co de. 1 T EX .F AM .C O D E A NN . § 107. 01 3 ( V er non Pam ph. 200 8). T he cour t appo i nt ed a di f f er ent at t orn ey t o re pres ent B ort ner o n a p p e a l. C O U R T O F A P P E A LS EI GHTH D I STRI CT OF TEXAS ELPASO, TEXAS

I N THE I NTEREST OF J .B. A ND E.B ., MI

NOR CHI L DREN § § § § § § No . 0 8- 07 -0 03 00 -C V

Appea l from 112th District Court of Pecos County , Texas (TC # P-10511-112-CV)
O P I N I O N Richard B ortner, Jr. ap p eals from a judg ment terminatinghis parenta l rig hts. Findingno
e rr or , w e a ff

ir m. B or tne r i s r e pr e se nte d o n a

pp e a l by c ourt -a pp ointe d coun se l wh o h a s f ile d a br ie f i n 1
acc ordanc e with the re quirements of An de rs v . Ca lif or nia , 386 U. S
. 7 3 8 , 7 41-44, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 1 3 9 8 -1 4 0 0 , 1 8 L
. E d
. 2 d 4 9 3 ( 1 9 6 7 ). C o urt -ap p o i n t edco un s el h as co n cl u d edth at , af t er th o ro u gh revie w of the re cord, B ortner’ s appea l is frivolous and without merit. In An de rs , the Supreme Court
rec og nized that counsel, thoug h appointed to re prese nt the appellant in an a ppeal f rom a c riminal conviction, had no duty to pursue a frivolous matter on a

ppeal. An de rs , 3 86 U. S. at 74 4, 87 S.Ct
. at 1400. Thus, counsel was permitted to withdraw a fter inf ormingthe cour

t of his conclusion and the ef fort made in arrivingat that conc lusion. Id
. The Te x as Supreme Court ha s not addresse d whether A n d e rs app lie s to an a

pp e a l f ro m atermination of par ental rights. Howeve r, several int erme diate appellate courts have c oncluded that

the proc edure s set forth in An de rs are applicable when a n appointed attorne y co ncludes that ther e are no non-frivolous iss ues to asser t on appea l. See Taylor v . Texas De pt. of Protective and Regulatory Serv ices , 1 60 S.W. 3d 64 1, 64 6- 47 (T e x.Ap p. -- Au sti n 2 00 5, pe t. d e nie d) ; In re D.E.S. , 13 5 S.W. 3d 32 6, 32 9 ( Te x.Ap p. -- Ho us ton [14t h D ist .] 20 04 , n o p e t.) ; In re K.D. , 127 S.W .3d 66, 67 (Tex.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, no pet.); Porter v. Tex as Department of Prot ec tive & Regulatory Serv ices , 1 05 S.W. 3d 52 , 56 (T e x.Ap p. -- Cor

pu s Christ i 20 03 , n o p e t.) ; In re K.M. , 98 S.W. 3d 77 4, 77 7 ( Te x.App.- -F or t Wor th 2 00 3, no pe t.) ; I

n r eE

. L

. Y. , 69 S.W .3d 838, 841 (T e x.Ap p. -- Wac o 2 00 2, no pe t.) ; In re K.S.M. , 61 S.W .3d 632, 634 (Tex.App.--Ty ler 2001, no pe t.); In reA. W .T. , 6 1 S. W.3 d 8 7, 88 (T e x.Ap p. -- Am ari llo 20 01 , n o p e t.) . We a g re e wi th o ur sis te r c ourt s
and the re fo re ho ld t

hat An de rs is applicable to a n appea l from a ter

mination of pare ntal rights where
c ourt -a pp ointe d c ouns e l ha s d e te rm ine d th at th e a pp e a l is frivo lou s. Court-appointed counsel’s brief meets the require ments of An de rs by advanc ing c ontentions which might arguably support the appe al. Se eAn de rs , 3 86 U. S. 7 44 , 8 7 S. Ct. at 14 00 ; Hi gh v . S tate , 57 3 S. W.2d 80 7 (Tex .Crim. Ap p. 19 78 ); Currie v. State, 516 S.W .2d 684 (Tex.Crim.App. 1974). Counsel has established that she provided B ortner w ith a copy of the An de rs brief, notifie d him of his right to file a pr o s e brief, a nd explained how he could obtain a copy of the a ppellate r ecor d. Bor tner has not filed a pro se brief. H avingthoroughly revie wed the r ecor d and counse l’s brief, w e agree with counsel’s a ssessment that the appe al is frivolous and without merit. A further discussion of the a rguable grounds advanc ed in c ounsel’s brief would add nothing to the jurisprudenc e of the state. The judgment is affirme d.

Fe bruar y 5, 2009ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, J ustice

B e f o r e C h e w , C
. J. , M c C l ur e , a n d C ar r , JJ. Carr, J., not participating