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

NO. 03
- 20
- 00021
- CV

E. A. A., Appellant

v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee

FROM THE 53RD DISTRI CT COURT OF TRAVIS C OUNTY NO. D
- 1
- FM
- 18
- 003766 , THE HONORABLE TIM SULAK, J UDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
E.A.A. appeals from the trial court ’ s order terminating her parental rights to her
child

. See Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001. After a jury trial, the trial court rendered judgment on the jury ’ s verdict f

inding by clea r and convi ncing evidence that several statutory grounds existed for terminating E.A. A. ’ s parental rights and that termination was in the child ’ s best interest. See id. § 161.001(b)(1) ( D), (E) , ( L), (Q), (b)(2).

App ellant ’ s court

- appoint ed co unsel has filed a brief conclud ing that the appeal
is frivolous and without merit. See Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967); In re P.M. , 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 & n.10 (Tex. 2016) (per curiam) (approving use of Anders procedure in appeals from te rm ination of parental rights because it “strikes an important balance between the
defendant ’ s constitutional right to counsel on appeal and counsel ’ s obligation not to prosecute frivolous appeals” (citations omitted) ). The brief meets the requirements of An ders by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be2

advanced on appeal. See 386 U.S. at 744; Taylor v. Texas Dep ’ t of Protective & Regulatory
Servs. , 160 S.W.3d 641, 646

– 47 (Tex. App.

— Aust in 2005, pet. denied) ( applying Ande rs procedure in parental

- termination case). Appellant ’ s counsel has certified to this Court that s he has provided h er client with a copy of the Anders brief , the reporter ’ s record, and the clerk ’ s record and informed he r client of her right to file a pro se br ief

. The Department of Family and Protective Services has filed a response to the Anders brief, waiving its right to file an appellee ’ s brief unless requested by this Court or as needed to respond to any pro se bri ef filed by appellant. To date, no pro se brief has been filed.

We have conducted a full examination of all of the proceedings to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous, as we must when presented with an Anders brief. See
Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S . 75, 80 (1988). We have specifically re viewed the trial court ’ s findings

as to E.A.A. under parts (D) and (E) of F amily C ode § 161.001(b)(1), and we have found no

non - frivo lous issues that co uld be raised on appeal with respect to those findings

. See In re N.G ., 577 S.W.3d 230, 237 (Tex. 2019) ( holding that “due process and due course of law requirements mandate that an appellate court detail its analysis for an appeal of te rmination of parental rights
under section 161.0 01(b)(1)(D) or (E) of the Fami ly Code” )

. After reviewing the record and the
Anders brief, we find nothing in the record that would arguably support E.A.A. ’ s appeal. We agree with appellant ’ s counsel that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. Accordingly, we
affirm the trial cou rt ’ s order terminating the parental rights of E.A.A. We deny couns el ’ s motion
to withdraw

. 1

1 The Texas Supreme Court has held that the right to counsel in suits seekin g ter mination of parental r ights extends to “all proceedings [in the Texas Supreme Court], including the filing of a petition for review.” In re P.M. , 520 S.W .3d 24, 27

– 28 (Tex. 2016) (per curiam). Accordingly, counsel ’ s obligations to E.A.A. have not ye t been discharged. See id

. If after3 __________________________________________ Th omas J. Baker , Justice
Befo re Chief Justice Rose, Justices B aker an d Triana
Affirmed
Filed: April 16, 2020

consulting with counsel appellant desires to file a petition for review, her counsel should timely file with the Texas Supreme Court “a petition for review that satisfies the standards for an Anders brief.” See id.