### 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. 03-17-00559- CV

I. R., Appellan t

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

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F TRAVIS CO UNTY, 250 TH JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. D-1 -F M- 16- 0008 77, H ONO RAB LE LO RA J. LI VINGSTO N, JUDGE P RESIDING

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

I .R. a ppeals from the trial court’s order terminating her pare ntal rig hts to he r minor
ch i l d. See Tex. Fa

m. Code § 161.001. Following a trial, the trial court found b y cl ea r an d 1 convincing evidenc e that statutory g rounds for terminating I .R.’s pare ntal rig hts exis ted and that
termination was in the c hild’s best interest. See id. § 161.001(b)( 1)(D) , (E), (N), (O ), (2)

.

On appea l, I .R.’s court-a

ppointed attorney has filed a motion to withdraw and a brief concluding that the appea l is frivolous and without merit. See Anders v. Calif ornia , 386 U.S. 738,
744 (1967); Taylor v. Texas Dep’ t of Protective & Regulatory Servs. , 160 S.W .3d 641, 646–47 (Tex. App.—Austin 2005, pet. denied) (applying Anders proce dure in appea l from termination of pare ntal rig hts). The brie f mee ts the require ments of Anders by prese nting a profe ssional e valuation of the

W e ref er to the mother by her initials only

. See Tex. Fa m. Code § 109.002(d); Tex. R

. 1 App. P. 9.8.rec ord demonstrating why there are n o ar gu able gr ounds to be advance d on appea l. See 386 U.S.

at 744; Taylor , 160 S.W .3d at 646–47. I .R.’s counsel has c ertified to this Court that she provided appellant with a copy of the Anders brief and motion to withdraw as counsel and informed her of her rig ht to examine the appellate rec ord and to file a pro se brief

. 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 brief
unless it de ems a brief nece ssary afte r revie w of any pro se brief filed by I .R. To date, I .R. ha s not filed a pr o se brief

. Upon rec eiving an Anders brief, we must conduct a full ex am i n ation of all of the
proce eding s to deter

mine whether the appea l is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988). We have revie wed the entire rec ord, including the Anders brief submitt ed on I .R.’s behalf , and have found nothing that would arg uably support an appea l. We ag ree that the appea l is frivolous
and without merit. Acc ording ly , we aff irm the trial court’s order terminating I .R.’s pare ntal rig hts. We deny counsel’s motion to withdraw. 2

See In re P.M. , 520 S.W .3d 24 (Tex. 2016) (per curia m). I n In re P.M. , the Texas Supreme 2 Court held that the rig ht to counsel in suits seeking the termination of pare ntal rig hts extends to “all proce eding s in [the Texas Supre me Court] , including the filing of a petition for revie w.” Id. at 27. Acc ording ly , counsel’s obliga tion to I .R. has not y et been discharg ed. See id. I f I .R., afte r consulting with counsel, desires to file a petition for revie w, counsel should timel y file with the Texas Supreme Court “a petition for revie w that satisfies the standards for an Anders brief.” See id. at 27–28.
2_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Melissa Goodwin, Jus tice
Be fore Chief J ustice Rose, Jus tices Pemberton a nd Goodwin
Affir med
Filed: Nove mber 1, 2017

3