### IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10
- 15
- 00081
- CV
IN THE INTERESTOF Z. H., J.H., AND K.H., CHILDREN

From the 74th District Court McLennan County, Texas Trial Court No. 2013
- 2606
- 3

MEMORANDUM OPINION
After Ap pellant’s parental rights to his child ren Z.H., J.H., and K.H. were terminated following a bench trial , 1 Appellant ’s appointed appellate counsel filed a notice of appeal. 2 Appellant’s counsel has now filed an Anders brief and a motion to
withdraw. Counsel asserts that s he has diligently revi ewed the record and that, in her opinion, the appeal is frivolous. See Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18

1 Appellant’s rights were terminated under Family Code sections 161.001(1)(D), 161.001(1)(E), and 161.001(1)(O).

2 The parental rights of D.S., the children’s mother, were also termin ated, but she has no t appealed . Also, she did not appear at trial.In the Interest of Z. H., J.H., and K.H., Children Page 2

L.Ed. 2d 493 (1 967) ; In re E.L.Y. , 69 S.W.3d 838, 841 (Tex. App.

— Waco 2002, order) (applying Anders to termination ap peal). Counsel’s brief meets the requirements of Anders ; it presents a professional evaluation demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to advanc e on appeal. See
In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 n.9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (“In Texas, an Anders brief need not specifically advance ‘arguable’ points of error if counsel finds none, but it must provide record references to the facts and procedural h istory and set out pertinent legal authorities.”); Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991)

. A ppellant’s counsel has carefully discussed why, under controlling authority, there is no reversible

error in the trial court’s order of termination . Counsel has informed us that she has: (1) examined the record and found no arguable grounds to advance on appeal; (2) served a copy of the brief and counsel’s motion to withdraw on A ppellant; and (3) provided
A ppellant with a copy of the rec ord and informed him of his right to file a pro se response.
See Anders , 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400; Stafford , 813 S.W.2d at 510 n.3; High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978); see also Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at
409 n.23

. Appellant did not file a pro se response. Upon receiving an Anders brief, we must conduct a full examination of all the proceedings to determine whether the case is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 349

- 50, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988). An appeal is “wholly frivolous” or “without merit” when it “lacks any basis in law or fact.” McCoy v. Court of Appeals , 486 U.S. 429, 439 n.10, 108 S.Ct. 1895, 1902 n.10, 100 L.Ed.2d 440 (1988)

.In the Interest of Z. H., J.H., and K.H., Children Page 3

We have reviewed the entire record and counsel’s b rief and have found nothing that would arguably support an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 827

- 28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (“Due to the nature of Anders briefs, by indicating in the opinion that it
considered the issues raised in the briefs an d reviewed the record for reversible error but found none, the court of appeals met the requirement of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1.”); Stafford , 813 S.W.2d at 509. Accordingly, w e affirm the trial court’s
order of termination.
In accordance with Anders , counsel has filed a motion to withdraw. We grant
counsel’s motion to withdraw. 3 Within five days of the date of this Court’s opinion and judgment , counsel is ordered to send a copy of the opinion and judgment to A ppellant
and t o advise A ppellant of his right to pursue a petition for rev iew in the Texas Supreme
Court.

REX D. DAVIS Justice Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis , and Justice Scoggins Affirmed Opini on delivered and filed June 25, 2015 [CV06]

3 Any petition for review must be filed within forty

- five days after the date of either this opinion or the last ruling by this Court on all timely filed motions for rehearing. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 53.7(a). Any petition for review must comply with the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 53.2. See id. at R. 53.2.