### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03 - 21 - 00273 - CV
O. J. I., Sr. , Appellant

v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services , Appellee

FROM THE 261ST DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY NO. D - 1 - FM - 19 - 002319 , THE HONORABLE MAYA G UERRA GAMBLE , JUDGE PRESIDING
M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
O. J .I
. , S r., appeals a final order terminating his parental rights to two children, who were five and four years old at the time of trial. Following a three

- da y jury tria l, the district
c our t rendered judgment finding by clear and convincing evidence that mult iple statutory grounds support terminating O.J.I
. ’s parental rights and that termination is in the best interest of the children. See Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), (O) , (b ) ( 2). O.J. I. filed timely notice of appeal. O.J.I
. ’s court

- appointed counsel has fi led a motion to withdraw accompanied by a brief concluding that any appeal is frivolous and without merit. See Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967) (stating th at court
- ap p o inted counsel who believes appeal is wholly frivolous should file motion to withdraw “accompanied by a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal”); In re P.M. , 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 & n.10 (Tex.2

2016) (per cu ria m) (appr o v ing use of Anders procedure in appeals from termination of parental right s). Counsel’s brief meets the requirements of Anders by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating that there are no arguable grounds for reversal to be advan c e d on appeal. See 386 U.S. at 744; Taylor v. Texas Dep’t of Protective & Regul
. Servs. , 160 S.W.3d 641, 646

– 47 (Tex. App.

— Austin 2005, pet. denied) (applying Anders procedure in parental

- rights termination case). Counsel has certified to this Co urt t h at he provided O.J.I
. with a copy of the Anders brief and motion to withd raw as counsel and a notice of his right to file a pro se brief. O.J.I
. did not file a brief.

Upon receipt of an Anders brief, we must conduct a full examination of the proc eed ings t o determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988). After reviewing the record and the briefing, we find nothing that would arguably support a meritorious appeal. We thus agree with counsel that this appe al is f r i volous and without merit. We nevertheless deny counsel’s motion to with draw. In P.M. , the Supreme Court of Texas explained that a parent’s right to counsel in termination suits extends to “all proceedings in [the Supreme Court of Texas], in clud ing t he f iling of a petition for review.” 520 S.W.3d at 27. Accordingly, cou nsel’s obligation to O.J.I. has not yet been discharged. See id. If O.J.I
. , after consulting with counsel, desires to file a petition for review, counsel should timely file wit h t h e high court “a petition for review that satisfies the standards for an An ders brief.” See id. at 27

– 28.

For the reasons stated herein, we affirm the order terminating O.J.I. ’ s parental rights and deny counsel’s motion to withdraw.3 ______________ _________ ___________________ Edward Smith , Justice Before Just ices Good win, Baker, and Smith Affirmed Filed: October 12, 2021