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

NO. 03
- 20
- 00554
- CV

D. S. and K. S. S., Appellant s

v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee

FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY NO. 19
- 0083
- CPSC1, THE HONO R ABLE BRANDY HALLFORD, JUDGE PRESIDING

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

. S . ( Father ) and K.S.S. ( Mother ) appeal from the district court ’ s order , following a bench trial, terminating their parental rights to five

- year - old K. S

. (the child ). Counsel for each parent has filed a br ief pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967)

. We will affirm the district court ’ s order of termination.

The case began in August 2019, when the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services ( th e Departmen t) received a report alleging neglect ful supervision of the child by Father and Mother. T he report alleged that Father and Mother had engaged in domestic violence and that the child had witnessed the violence. In September 2019 , the Departme nt received a second report of neglectful supervision of the child by Father and Mother , this time alleging that Father and Mother had used methamphetamine in a motel room while the child was present. Father and Mother were arrested for possession of a co nt rolled substance and the child2

was removed from their care. A ha ir follicle test was performed on the child upon her removal from Father and Mother , and the child tested positive for methamphetamine.

The evidence presented at trial showed that Father h a d an exten sive criminal history, including convictions for possession of methamp h etamine , attempted forgery , misdemeanor thef

t, failure to iden tify as a fugitive , and a second conviction for possession of methamphetamine , which had occurred while this cas e was ongoing. In his testimon y a t trial, Father admitted to methamphetamine use but denied committing domest ic violence against Mother. Father was ordered to complete various ser vices during the case, including the completion of a substance abuse progra m . Father failed to complete t he program and failed to
comp lete other court

- ordered services, includ ing individual therapy, anger management, a batterer ’ s intervention program, and protective parenting classes

. Father tested positive fo r methamphetamine o n one occasion during the pendency of the case and failed to appear for other scheduled drug tests

.

Mother testified at trial that she was aware of Father ’ s illegal

- drug use because she and Father would use drugs together. The drugs that Mother used incl u ded methamph etamine , marij uana, and cocaine. Mother claimed that the last time she had used d rugs

was in October 2019, a lthough she admitted to using marijuana “ probably about two months
ago. ” Mother testified, “ I don ’ t count marijuana as a drug. ” As p a rt of Mother ’ s court

- order ed servic es , she was ordered to submit to drug test ing on a regular basis. However, Mother failed to
appear or submit a sample for 22 of the 27 tests that she was ordered to take. Mother completed
some court

- or dered services bu t failed to complete other s, including parenting classes, anger management, and individual therap y.3 Mother denied that any physical violence had occurred between her and Father.
Howe ver, the Department confronted Mother with a written statement that s he g ave to the polic e following the alleged domestic

- violence incident in 2 019 . In the statement, Mother wrote that during a verbal al tercation with Father in which she tried to call 911 fro m a motel room , Father ripped the phone from the wall, pinned Mot her to the wall and shove d her face against it , and injured Mother ’ s hand by forcefully pulling from her hand a shoe that she had been holding

. Mother responded by hitting and biting Father. When asked if her statement to the police was
tr ue, Mother ackn owled ged, “ The sta tement is true. The whole s tatement is true. ” Mother added that Father had broken her finger during the inciden t.

The Department placed the child with Mother ’ s sister (Aunt). Department caseworker Erin Weaver testified that t he child had b onde d with Aunt and called her “ mom. ” The child also had bonded with A unt ’ s husband and called him “ dad. ” Aunt and her husband wanted to adopt the child, and the child had told CASA volunteer Karen Chase that she wanted to spend “ the rest o f her life ” wit h A unt. Chase testified that the child was “ very happy where she is at ” and that Aunt could provide th e child with “ a stable home ” and “ meet her needs and
wants. ” Aunt testified th at she loved the child and that she an d her husband were wi lling to be a
l ong - term placeme nt for the child.

At the conclusion of trial, the district court found by clear and convincing evidence that termination of Father ’ s and Mother ’ s parental rights was in the best interest of the ch ild and that Father and M o ther had: (1) kno w ingly placed or knowingly allowed the child to remain in conditions or surroundings which endanger ed the physical or emotional well

- being of the child ; ( 2 ) engaged in conduct or knowingly placed the child with persons who engaged in condu ct which endanger e d the physical or emotional well

- being of the child ; and ( 3 ) failed to4

comply with the provisions o f a court order that specifically established the actions necessary for the m to obtain the return of the child

. See Tex. Fam. Cod e § 161.001(b)(1) ( E), (O), (2)

. T he district court further found that Father had used a controlled substance in a manner that endangered the health or safety of the child and failed to comp lete a court

- ordered substance abuse treatment program

. See id

. § 161.001(b)(1 )(P)

. This appeal by each parent followed.

Court

- appointed counsel for each parent has filed an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw as counsel, concluding that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. See 386 U.S. at
744 ; In re P.M. , 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 & n .10 (Tex. 2016) (per curiam) (approving use of Anders procedure in appeals from termination of parental rights because it “strikes an important balance
between the defendant ’ s constitutional right to counsel on appeal and counsel ’ s obliga tion not to
prosec ute frivolous appeals” (citations omitted)). Each brief meets the requirements of Anders by presenting a professional eval uation of the record and demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced on appeal. See 386 U.S. at 744 ; Taylor v. Te xas Dep ’ t of Protective & Regulatory Servs. , 160 S.W.3d 641, 646

- 47 (Tex. App.

— Austin 2005, pet. denied)

. Each counsel has c ertified to this Court that they have provided their client with a copy of the Anders brief and informed them of t heir right to exam ine the appellate record and to file a pro se brief. No pro se brief has been filed by either parent.

Upon receiving an A nders brief, we must conduct a full examination of the record to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. See Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988) ; Taylor , 160 S.W.3d at 647

. We have reviewed the entire record, including the Anders brief submitted on each parent ’ s behalf. We have found nothing in the record that might arguably support an appeal, and we agr ee that the appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we affirm5

the district court ’ s order terminating Father ’ s and Mother ’ s parental rights. We deny each counsel ’ s motion to withdraw. 1

__________________________________________ Gisela D. Triana , Justice Before Justices Goodwin, Tr iana, and Kelly Affirmed Filed: February 24, 2021

1 The Texas Sup re me Court h as held that the right to counsel in suits seeking termination of parental rights extends to “all proceedings [in the Texas Supreme Court], including the f iling of a petition for review.” In re P.M. , 520 S.W.3d 24, 27

- 28 (Tex. 2016) (per curiam ). According ly, if after consulting with counsel either parent desires to file a petition for review, that parent ’ s counsel should timely file with the Texas Supreme C ourt “a petition for review that satisfies the standards for an Anders brief.” See id

.