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

NO. 03
- 19
- 00 810
- CV

K. M ., Appellant

v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee

FROM THE 146TH DISTR ICT COURT OF BELL CO UNTY NO. 298,186
- B, THE H ONORABLE JACK WELDON JONES, JUDG E PRESIDING

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

Katie appeals a final decree terminating her parental rights to a child

. 1 Following
de novo trial to the bench , see Tex. Fam. Code § 201.015(a) (allowing de no vo review of associate judge ’ s reports and o r ders ) , the district court rendered judgment find ing by clear and

c onvincing evidence that Katie had failed to comply with court orders establishing the conditions
necessary to regain custodial rights , s ee id. § 161.001(b)(1)( O ) , and that termination is in the best
interest of the child , see id. § 161.001 (b)(2)

. Katie filed timely appea l

.

Katie ’ s court

- appointed attorney has filed a motion to withdr aw acco mpanied by a brief alleging that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. See Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 , 744 (1967) (stating that court

- ap pointed counsel w ho believes appeal is who lly frivolous should

1 See Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001. We refer t o appellant by a pseudonym

. See id. § 109.002(d).2

file motion to withdraw “accompanied by a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal”); In re P.M. , 520 S.W

. 3d 24, 27 & n.10 (Tex. 2016) (per curiam) (appr oving use of Ande rs procedure in appeals f rom termination of parental rights)

. The
brief mee ts the requirements of Anders by presenting a professional evaluation of the
record demonstrating that there are no a rguable grounds for reversal to be advan ced on appeal. See Anders , 386 U.S. at 744; Taylo r v. Texas Dep’t of Protective & Re gulatory Servs. , 160 S .W.3d 641, 646

– 47 (Tex. App.

— Austin 2005, pet. denied) (applying Anders procedure in parental

- rights termin a tion ca se ). C ounsel has certified to this Court that s he provided Katie with a copy of the Anders brief , a copy of the motion to withdra w , and not ice of her right to file a
brief pro se
. Katie did not file a brief , and the Departm ent of Family and Prote c tive Services has
elected not to brief the C ourt in this matter.

Upon receipt of an Anders brief, we must conduct a full examination of the proceedi ngs below to determine whether the appeal is whol ly frivolous. See Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988) ; In re D.A.S. , 973 S.W.2d 296, 297 (Tex. 1998)

. After reviewing the
record and t he briefing , we find nothing that wou ld arguably support a meritorious appeal. It is undisputed that Katie repeatedly failed to comply with court

- ordered treatment , services, and

t est ing intended to help her overcome methamphetamine addiction and regain custody of the
child

. Equally uncontroverted is the Department ’ s evidence that Katie ’ s child is thriving in her placement

. We therefore ag ree with Katie ’ s attorney t hat this a pp eal is friv olous and
without merit. Nevertheless, we must deny counsel’s motion to withdraw

. T he Su preme Court
of Texas has held that a parent ’ s right to counsel extends t o “all proceedings in [the Supr eme Court of Texas ], includ in g the filing o f a p eti tion for revi ew.” See P.M. , 520 S.W.3d at 27

.3

Accordingly, counsel’s ob ligation t o Katie has not yet been discharged. See id. If Katie , after consulting wi th her attorney , desires to file a petitio n for review, counsel should time ly fil e w ith
the h igh court “a petition for review that satisfies the standards for an An ders brief.” See i d.

at 27

– 28. For the reasons stated herein, we affirm the d istrict court ’ s d ecree terminating
Katie ’ s parental rights and deny counsel ’ s motion to w ithdra w.

________ _________________________________ Edward Smith, Justice
Before Justices Goodwin , Kelly, and Smith
Affir med
Filed: March 18, 2020