### 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. 03-18-00482- CV

D. C. and K. C., Appellants

v. Texas Depart m ent of Fam ily and P rote ctive Service s, Appellee

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F B ELL COUNTY , 146 TH JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. 295 ,388 -B , H ONO RAB LE CHARLES H. VAN O RDEN, JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
Appellants D. C. and K. C. ap p ea l fr om the trial court’s order terminating their
pare ntal rig hts to their children. See Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001. F ollowing a bench trial, the trial
court enter ed judgme nt finding by clea r and convincing evidenc e that statutory g ro u n d s ex isted for terminating D. C.’s and K. C.’s pare ntal rig hts and that termination was in th e ch i l d ren’ s best interest. See id. § 161.001(b)( 1)(N) , (b)( 2).

Appellants’ court-a

ppoi n t ed counsel has filed a brief concluding that the appea ls

are frivolou s an d without merit. See Anders v. Calif ornia , 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967); In re P.M. , 520 S.W .3d 24, 27 & n.10 (Tex. 2016) (per curia m) (appr oving use of Anders proce dure in appea ls from termination of pare ntal rig hts beca use it “strikes an important balanc e betwee n the defe ndant’s constitutiona l ri gh t to counsel on appea l and counsel’s obliga tion not to prosec ute frivolous

a p p e a ls ” ( c it a

ti o n s o mi tt e d ) )

. T h e b r ie f me e ts th e r e q u ir e me n ts o f A n d

e r s b y p r e s e n ti n g a p r o f

e s s io n a levalua tion of the rec ord and demons t ra t ing why there are no arg uable g rounds to be advanc ed on

a p p e a l. S e e 3 8 6 U

. S. a

t 7 4 4 ; Ta y lo r v
. Te x a s D e p ’ t o f P r o te c ti v e & R e

g u la to r y S e r v s
. , 1 6 0 S. W. 3 d 6 4 1 , 646–47 (Tex. App.—Austin 2005, pet. denied) (apply ing Anders proce dure in pare ntal-termination

case ). Appe llants’ counsel ha s cer tified to this C ourt that she has made dilig ent ef forts to provide her clients with a copy of the Anders brief and information reg arding wher e they may obtain a copy of the rec ord as well as t heir rig ht to file pro se briefs. The Depa rtment of Family and Protective Service s has filed a response to the Anders brief waiving its rig ht to file an appellee ’s b ri ef b ut
reque sting that it be aff

orded an opportunity to respond to any pro se briefs filed by appellants. To date, no pr o se brief

s have be en filed.
We have conducte d a full examination of all of the proce eding s to deter mine whether the appeals are wholly frivolous, as we must when prese nted with an Anders brief. See Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988). After revie wing the rec ord and the Anders brief, we find nothing in the rec ord that would arg uably support either D. C.’s or K. C.’s appea l. We ag ree with appellants’ counsel that the appea ls are frivolous and without merit. Ac co rding ly , we aff irm the trial court’s order terminating the par ental rig hts of D. C. and K. C. We deny counsel’s motion to withdraw. 1

The Tex as S upreme Court has held that the right to counsel i n suits seeking termination 1 of pare ntal rig hts extends to “ all proce eding s [i n the Texas Supreme Court] , including the filing of a petition for r eview.” In re P.M. , 520 S.W .3d 24, 27–28 (Tex. 2016) (per curia m). Acc ording ly , counsel’s obligations t o D. C

. and K. C. have not y et been discharg ed. See id. I f after consulting with c ounsel appellants desire to f ile petitions for revie w, their counsel should timely file with the Texas Supreme Court “a petition for revie w that satisfies the standards for an Anders brief.” See id. 2__________________________________________ David Pury ear , J ustice
Be fore J ustices Pury ear , Goodwin, and B ourland
Affir med Filed: Oc tober 24, 2018

3