Motion to wi thdraw denied and Order filed May 12 , 202 2

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 21

- 00 7 38

- CV

____________ T.Z.M. , Appellant

V.
DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND PROTECTIVE SERVICES , Appellee

On Appeal from t he 3 13 th Distr ict Court

Har r is County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2020

- 01794J

ORDER
Appellant T.Z.M. is represented by court

- appointed counsel on appeal, Michael F. Craig

. On February 14, 2022 , appellant ’ s appointed counsel filed a brief stating the appeal is friv olous, under the authority of Anders v. Californ ia , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). See In re D.E.S. , 135 S.W.3d 326, 329

– 30 (Tex. App.

— Houston [ 14 th Dist.] 2004, no pet.) (applying Anders proc edures to a parental termination case). On the same day, counsel filed a motion to withdraw as appellate counsel based on his Anders brief. The Supr eme Court of Texas h as concluded that the right to counsel under Family Code section 107.013(a)(1) through the exhaustion of appeals under Family Code section 107.016(2)(B) encompa sses all proceedings in the Supreme Court of Texas, including the fi ling of a petition for revie w. In re P.M ., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 (Tex. 2016) (per curiam). Once appointed by the trial court, counsel should be permitted to withdraw only for good cause and on appropriate terms and2

conditions. Id . Mere dissatisfaction of couns el or cl ient with each other is not good

cause. Id . Nor is counsel’s belief that the client has no grounds to seek further review from the court of appeals’ decision. Id . Counsel’s obligat ion to the client still may be satisfied by filing an appellate brie f meetin g the standards set in Anders v. California and its progeny. See Anders , 386 U.S. at 7 44; In re P.M ., 520
S .W.3d at 28. However, counsel’s motion to withdraw in this court, in the absence of additional grounds for withdrawal, may be pr em ature. I n re P.M ., 520 S.W.3d at
27. If counsel for appellant has concluded there are no non

- frivolous points to urge in a pet ition for review in the Supreme Court of Texas, counsel should file in th at court a petition for review that satisfies the st andard s for a n Anders brief. See id

. (sta ting that “[i]n this Court, appointed counsel’s obligations can be satisfied by filing a p etition for review that satisfies the standards for an Anders brief”).

In addition, counsel ’ s motion to withdraw does not comply w i th Texas Rule s of Appellate Procedure 6 .5 and 10,1(a) (5)

. See Tex. R. App. P. 6.5 ( specifying

content s of motion to withdraw)
, 10

. 1(a) (5) ( requiring certificate of conference).

A petition for revie w mu st be filed with the Supreme C ourt c lerk within 45 days after the follo wing: (1) the date the court of appeals rendered judgment, if no motion for rehearing or e n banc reconsideration is timely filed; or (2) the date of
the court o f a ppeals’ last rulin g on all timely filed motions fo r rehear ing or en banc
reconsideration. Tex . R. App. P. 53.7(a). The Supreme Court of Texas may extend the time to file a petition fo r review if a party files a motion complying with Texas Rule of Appell ate Procedure 10.5(b) no later than 15 days after the l ast da y for filing the petition. Tex. R. App. P. 53.7(f).

Because (1) the motion does not comply with Rule s 6.5(a) and 10

. 1(a) (5)
and (2) the only grounds counsel has identified for withdrawal do not con stitute good cause, we d eny counsel’s motion to withdraw.

PER CURIAM

Pane l Consists of Chief Justice Christopher and Justices Bourliot and Spain.