1 In The 

### Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________ N O . 09
- 22
- 00111
- CV

__________________ IN THE INTEREST OF E.L.W.

________________________________________________________________ _

_ On Appeal from the 279th District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. F
- 239,383

__________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Mother and Father appeal from an order terminating their parental rights to their eleven

- month

- old daugh t er , E.L.W. The trial court found, by clear and convincing evi de nce, that statutory grounds exist for termination of Mother’s and Father’s parental righ ts and that termination of their parental rights would be in the best interest of the child. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(b)(1) (D), (E), (F), (N), (O) , (2)

. Mother’s and Father’s appointed attorneys submitted briefs in which both attorneys contend th at there are no meritorious issues for appeal and that the appeals are frivolous. See Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967); In re L.D.T ., 1612 S.W.3d 728, 730

- 31 (Tex. App.

— Beaumont 2005, no pet.) ( Anders procedures apply in parental

- rights termination cas e s). The briefs present the attorneys’ professional evaluation of the record and explain why no arguable grounds exist to overturn the trial court’s judgment. Both attorneys represented to the Court that they gave Mother and Father a copy of the Anders brief they filed, notified bot h parents of their right to file a pro se brief, and provided Mother and Fathe r a copy of the appellate record. The Court notified Mother and Father of their right to file a pro se
response and of the deadline for doing so. Neither Mother nor Father filed a response with the Court. We have independently evaluated the appellate record and the briefs filed by Mother ’s and Father’s court

- appointed attorneys. See Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75,
80 (1988) (citing Anders , 386 U. S. at 744); Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 826

- 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); In re K.R.C. , 346 S.W.3d 618, 619 (Tex. App.

— El Paso 2009, no pet.). Based on our review of the record, we have found nothing that would arguably support an appeal and we agree th at the appeals are frivolous and lack merit. See Bledsoe , 178 S.W.3d at 827

- 28 (“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.”); In re K.R. C ., 346 S.W.3d at 619. Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment of new3 counsel to re

- brief this appeal. Cf. Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court’s order terminating Mother’s and Father’s parental rights. We deny the motion s to withdraw filed by Mother ’s and Father’s court

appointed appellate attorney s because the right to counsel in suit s seeking the termination of parental rights extends through the exhaustion or waiver of all appeals. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 107.016(2)(B); In re P.M. , 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 (Tex. 2016). Accordingly, the obligation of Mo ther’s counsel to Mother and the obligation to Father’s counsel to Father ha ve not been discharged. See In re P.M. , 520 S.W.3d at 27. Should Mother or Father decide to pursue an appeal to the Supreme Court of Texas, their respective counsel ’s obligation ca n be met “by filing a petition for review that satisfies the standards for an Anders brief.” See id. at 27

- 28.
AFFIRMED.

_________________________ LEANNE JOHNSON Justice Submitted on August 15, 2022 Opinion Delivered August 18, 2022 Before Kreger, Horton and Johnson, JJ.