IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-19-00167-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF O.S.S. AND L.L.S., CHILDREN

From the 52nd District Court

Coryell County, Texas

Trial Court No. DC-17-46965

MEMORANDUM OPINION

After Appellant’s parental rights to her children, O.S.S. and L.L.S., 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, asserting that he 

diligently reviewed the record and that, in his opinion, the appeal is frivolous. See Anders 

v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967); In re E.L.Y., 69 S.W.3d 838, 

841 (Tex. App.—Waco 2002, order) (applying Anders to termination appeal).

 

1 The trial court found by clear and convincing evidence that Appellant had violated Family Code 

subsections 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), (N), and (O) and that termination was in the children’s best interest. See

TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 161.001(b).

2 The parental rights of the children’s father were also terminated, but he has not appealed.
In the Interest of O.S.S. and L.L.S., Children Page 2

Counsel’s brief meets the requirements of Anders; it presents a professional 

evaluation demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to advance on appeal. See 

In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 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 history and set out pertinent legal 

authorities.”); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Appellant’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 he has: (1) 

examined the record and found no arguable grounds to advance on appeal; (2) served a 

copy of the brief and the appellate record on Appellant; and (3) informed Appellant of 

her right to review the record and to file a pro se response.

3 See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 

S.Ct. at 1400; Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); 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 408-09. Appellant has not filed a pro se response and has 

not raised any arguable issues.

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 

 

3 The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has held that “’the pro se response need not comply with the rules 

of appellate procedure in order to be considered. Rather, the response should identify for the court those 

issues which the indigent appellant believes the court should consider in deciding whether the case 

presents any meritorious issues.’” Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409 n.23 (quoting Wilson v. State, 955 S.W.2d 

693, 696-97 (Tex. App.—Waco 1997, order)).
In the Interest of O.S.S. and L.L.S., Children Page 3

U.S. 429, 438 n.10, 108 S.Ct. 1895, 1902 n.10, 100 L.Ed.2d 440 (1988). We have reviewed 

the entire record and counsel’s brief and have found nothing that would arguably 

support an appeal.4 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 and reviewed the record for reversible error but found none, 

the court of appeals met the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1.”); 

Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 509.

Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s order of termination. We also remind 

Appellant’s appointed appellate counsel that if Appellant, after consulting with counsel, 

desires to file a petition for review, counsel is still under a duty to timely file with the 

Texas Supreme Court “a petition for review that satisfies the standards for an Anders 

brief.” In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27-28 (Tex. 2016) (per curiam); see In re G.P., 503 S.W.3d 

531, 535 (Tex. App.—Waco 2016, pet. denied); see also TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 107.016.

REX D. DAVIS

Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and 

Justice Neill

Affirmed

Opinion delivered and filed November 6, 2019

[CV06]

 

4 We note that counsel reviewed the sufficiency of the evidence for ground E and determined it was 

frivolous to attack that finding. We agree. See In re N.G., 577 S.W.3d 230 (Tex. 2019).