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 GUERRA GAMBLE, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

O.J.I., Sr., 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-day jury trial, the district 

court rendered judgment finding by clear and convincing evidence that multiple 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 filed 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 that court-appointed 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 curiam) (approving use of Anders procedure in appeals from termination of parental 

rights). 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 

advanced 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 Court that he provided O.J.I. with 

a copy of the Anders brief and motion to withdraw 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 

proceedings to 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 appeal is frivolous and 

without merit.

We nevertheless deny counsel’s motion to withdraw. 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], including the filing of a petition for review.” 

520 S.W.3d at 27. Accordingly, counsel’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 with the high court “a petition for review that satisfies the standards for an Anders

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 Justices Goodwin, Baker, and Smith

Affirmed

Filed: October 12, 2021