COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

IN THE INTEREST OF:

C.A.S., Jr. and S.E.R.S.,

Minor Children.

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-22-00027-CV

Appeal from the

109th District Court

of Andrews County, Texas

(TC# 21,851)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Mother W.R.1appeals a trial court judgment terminating her parental rights to children 

C.A.S., Jr. and S.E.R.S. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Mother is represented on appeal by court-appointed counsel who has filed a brief in 

accordance with the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 741-44 (1967). Courtappointed counsel has concluded that, after a thorough review of the record, Mother’s appeal is 

frivolous and without merit. Mother was notified of the filing of the brief and given an opportunity 

to file her own brief.

In Anders, the Supreme Court recognized that counsel, though appointed to represent the 

appellant in an appeal from a criminal conviction, had no duty to pursue a frivolous matter on 

1 We refer to the parties by aliases. See TEX.R.APP.P. 9.8(b)(2).
2

appeal. Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. Thus, counsel was permitted to withdraw after informing the 

court of his conclusion and the effort made in arriving at that conclusion. Id. The procedures set 

forth in Anders apply to an appeal from a case involving the termination of parental rights when 

court-appointed counsel has determined that the appeal is frivolous. See In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 

24, 27 n.10 (Tex. 2016) (per curiam) (recognizing that Anders procedures apply in parental 

termination cases); In re J.B., 296 S.W.3d 618, 619 (Tex.App.--El Paso 2009, no pet.).

Counsel’s brief meets the requirements of Anders by containing a professional evaluation 

of the record and demonstrating that there are no arguable grounds for reversal of the termination 

order. Upon receiving an Anders brief, we are required to conduct a full examination of all the 

proceedings to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 

(1988). We have thoroughly reviewed the entire record, including the Anders brief, and we have 

found nothing that would arguably support an appeal. We agree with counsel’s professional 

assessment that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. Because there is nothing in the record 

that might arguably support the appeal, the final order terminating Mother’s parental rights is 

affirmed.

The Texas Supreme Court has determined that the right to counsel in suits seeking the 

termination of parental rights extends to all proceedings in the Texas Supreme Court, including 

the filing of a petition for review. In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d at 27; see TEX.FAM.CODE ANN. 

§ 107.016(2). Accordingly, counsel’s obligations to W.R. have not yet been discharged. See In re

P.M., 520 S.W.3d at 27. In the event Mother advises appointed counsel that she wishes to 

challenge our decision by filing a petition for review, “counsel’s obligations can be satisfied by 

filing a petition for review that satisfies the standards for an Anders brief.” Id. at 27-28.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in all respects.
3

JEFF ALLEY, Justice

June 2, 2022

Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox, and Alley, JJ.