# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas** MEMORANDUM OPINION
N o. 04

- 18

- 00398

- CV
IN THE INTEREST OF F.A.L. III and J.E.A., Children From the 285th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2017PA01098 Honorable Charles E. Montemayor, Judge Presiding Opinion by: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Sitting: Marialyn Barnard, Justice Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Irene Rios, Justice Delivered and Filed: October 31, 2018 AFFIRMED; MOTION TO WITHDRAW DENIED Appellant Mom appeals the trial court’s order terminating her parental rights to her children F.A.L. III and J.E.A. For th e reasons given below, we affirm the trial court’s order. The Department petitioned for temporary conservatorship of the children because of
Mom ’s ongoing use of heroin and her arrest for prostitution. The trial court heard evidence that
Mom did not com plete many of her ordered services , she had not demonstrated she could obtain stable employment and housing or provide for the children’s basic needs, the children were thriving in their foster home, and the placement was leading to permanency. The trial court found
Mom ’s course of conduct met statutory grounds (N) and (O), and terminating her rights was in the children’s best interests . It terminated Mom ’s parental rights to the children

. Mom appeals.04

- 18

- 00398

- CV

- 2

- A NDERS B RIEF Mom ’s court

- appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw and a brief containing a professional evaluation of the record. The brief concludes there are no arguable grounds to reverse the termination order. The brief satisfies the requirements of Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). See In re P.M. , 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 n.10 (Tex. 2016) (per curiam) ( applying Anders procedures to parental rights termination cases). Counsel also represents that he provided Mom with a copy of the Anders brief , his motion to withdraw, and a form to request a f ree copy of the appellate record . He advised Mom of her right to review the record and file her own brief. We ordered Mom to file her pro se brief, if any, not later than September 17, 2018

. Mom did not request a copy of the record or file a pro se bri ef. Having carefully reviewed the entire record and counsel’s brief, we conclude the evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support the trial court’s findings by clear and convincing evidence. We further conclude that there are no plausible grounds to reverse the termination order

. Thus, w e affirm the trial court’s order.
M OTION TO W ITHDRAW In his motion to withdraw, court

- appointed appellate counsel does not assert any ground for withdrawal other than his conclusion that the appeal is frivolous. Counsel’s duty to Mom is not yet complete; the motion to withdraw is denied. See id. at 27, n.11 ; see als o T EX
. F AM

. C ODE A

NN
. § 107.016(3); In Interest of A.M. , 495 S.W.3d 573, 583 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 2016, pet. denied) (“ If the mother wishes to pursue an appeal to the Supreme Court of Texas, ‘appointed counsel’ s obligations can be satisfied by filing a petition for review that satisfies the standards for an Anders brief

. ’” (quoting In re P.M. , 520 S.W.3d at 27

– 28 ) )

. Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice