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

NO. 03
- 22
- 00599
- CV

C. M. , Appellant

v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services , Appellee

FROM THE 459TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY NO. D
- 1
- FM
- 20
- 005059 , THE HONORABLE MADELEINE CONN OR , JUDGE PRESIDING

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

C.M. appeals from the trial court ’ s order terminating h is parental rights to his
three child ren
. See Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001. After a bench trial, t he trial court rendered judgment finding by cle a r and convi ncing evidence that two s tatutory ground s existed for terminating C.M. ’ s parental rights and that termination was in the child ren ’ s best inte rest

. See id. § 161.001(b)(1) , (E) , ( O ) , (b)(2).

App ellant ’ s court

- appoint ed co unsel has fi led a brief conclud ing that the appeal is
fr ivolous 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) (approvin g use of Anders procedure in appeals from te rm ination of pa re ntal r ights because it “strikes an important balance between
the defendant ’ s constitutional right to counsel on appeal and counsel ’ s obligation not to

pr osecute frivolous appeals” (citations omit ted) ). The brief meets the requirements of An ders by

prese nt ing a profe ssional evaluation of the record and demonstrating why there are no arguable2

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

– 47 (Tex. App.

— Aust in 2005, p et. d en ied) ( apply ing
Ande rs procedure in parental

- termination case). Appellant ’ s counsel has certified to this Court
that s he has provided C.M. with a copy of the Anders brief and in formed him of his r ight to
receive a c opy of the enti re appellate record and f il e a p ro se brief. The Department of Family
and P rote ctive Services has filed a response to the Anders brief, waiving its right to file an appellee ’ s bri ef unless requested by this Court or as needed to re spond to any pro se bri ef filed by a ppellant

. T o date , appellant has not filed a pro se brief

.

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. S ee
Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75 , 80 ( 1 988). We have specifically re viewed the trial court ’ s findings as to C.M

. under part (E) of F amily C ode § 161.001(b)(1), and we have found no

non
- frivo lous i ssues that co uld be raised on appeal with respect to t hat fi ndin g
. See In re N. G ., 57 7 S.W.3 d 230, 2 37 ( T e x. 2019) ( holding that “due process and due course of law requirements mandate that an appellate court detail its analysis for an appeal of te rmin ation of parental rights
under section 161.0 01(b)(1)( D) or (E) of the Fami ly Code” )

. Aft e r revi e wing th e re c o rd and the
Anders brief, we find nothing in the record that would arguably support C.M

. ’ s appeal

. We agree with appellant ’ s counsel that the appe al is frivolous and without merit. Accordingly, we

a ffirm the tri al cou rt ’ s order termin a ting t h e paren tal r i ghts of C.M

. We deny counsel ’ s motion
to withdraw. 1

1 The Texas Supreme Court has held that the right to counsel in suits seeki n g t ermination of par ental r ights exten d s to “all proc eed i ngs [in the Texas Supreme C ourt], including the filing of a petition for review.” In re P.M. , 520 S.W .3d 24, 27

– 28 (Tex. 201 6) (per curiam).3 __________________________________________ Thomas J. Baker , Justice
Before Justices Bake r, Triana, and Kelly
Affirmed
Filed: February 10, 2023

Accordingly, counsel ’ s obligations to C.M. have not ye t bee n discharged. Se e id

. If after co n sulting with c oun se l appellant desires to fil e a petition for review, h is c ounsel should timely file with the Texas Supreme Court “a petition for r eview that satisfies the standards for an Anders brief.” See id.