## In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06

- 22

- 00044

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF G.R., A.R., M.R., R.R., R.R., AND R.R., CHILDREN

On Appeal from the County Court at Law Panola County, Texas Trial Court No. 2 020

- 291

Before Morriss, C.J., Stevens and van Cleef , JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice van Cleef2 

### ME MORANDUM OPINION

This is an appeal from a judgment terminating Father ’ s and Mother ’ s parental rights to their six children, G.R., A.R., M.R., R.R., R.R., and R.R., 1 on grounds that Father and Mother knowingly placed or knowingly allowed the children to remain in conditions or surroundings that endanger ed their physical or emotional well

- being, engaged in conduct or knowingly placed the children with persons w ho engaged in conduct that endangered the physical or emotional well

being of the children, and failed to follow court orders setting forth the actions required for them
to obtain the child ren ’ s return. See T EX

. F AM

. C ODE A NN

. § 161.001(b ) ( 1 ) ( D ), ( E ) , (O)

. The
trial court further found that termination was in the children ’ s best interests. See T EX

. F AM

. C ODE A NN

. § 161.001 (b ) ( 2). Father ’ s and Mother ’ s court

- appointed appellate attorneys ha ve filed motion s to withdraw and brief s discussing the appli c able law and evaluating the entire
record in this case. Counsel for both parents conclude that no non
- frivolous grounds can be advanced to support reversal of the trial court ’ s judgment. Because we agree, we affirm the trial

court ’ s judgment.
Father ’ s and Mother ’ s attorney s ha ve filed separate brief s, both of which state that t he y ha ve reviewed the record and ha ve found no genuinely arguable issues that could be raised on appeal. The brief

s set out the procedural history of the case and summarize the e vid ence elicited during the trial court proceedings. Meeting the requirements of Anders v. California , counsel
ha ve each provided a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. Anders v. Califor n ia , 386 U.S. 738, 743

– 44 (1967); In re

1 We use initials to protect the identity of the child ren and refer to their parents as Father and Mother

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 9.8.3

Schulman , 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding); s ee In re P.M

. , 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 (Tex. 2016) (per curiam) (recognizing that Anders procedures apply in parental

rights termination cases)

. On S eptember 14 , 202 2 , Father ’ s counsel mailed Father copies of the brief and the motion to withdraw, as well as a motion for pro se access to the appellate record lacking only
Father ’ s signature. Father was informed of his rights to review the record and fil e a pro se
response. Also , on September 14, 2022, M other ’ s counsel mailed Mother copies of the brief and the motion to withdraw, as well as a motion for pro se access to the appellate record lacking only
Mother ’ s signature. By letter dated September 21, 2022 , th i s Court informed Father and Mother
that their r espective pro se motion s for access to the appellate record w ere due on or before September 28, 2022 . On October 11 , 2022, this Court further informed Father and Mother that
the case would be set for submiss i on on the briefs on November 1, 2022, and that any pro se brief filed before then would be considered. We received neither a pro se response nor a motion requesting an extension of time in which to file such a response from either Father or M othe r
. We h a ve determined that this appeal is wholly frivo lous. We have independently reviewed the entire appellate record and, like counsel, have determined that no arguable issue supports an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 826

– 27 (Tex. C rim. App. 20 0 5). Therefore, we affirm the trial court ’ s ju dgment. Even so, we deny the respective motion s to withdraw. See In re P.M

. , 520 S.W.3d at 27 (noting that , in parental

- rights termination cases , court

- appointed counsel ’ s duty to his client generally extends “ through the exhaustion of appeals ” “ including the filing of a petition for4

review ” in the Texas Supreme Court). If either Father or Mother desires to pursue this matter in the Texas Supreme Court, counsel may fulfil l his or her duty “ by filing a petition for review that
satisfies the standards for an Anders brief. ” See id

. at 28. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Charles van Cleef Justice
Date Submitted: November 1, 2022 Date Decided: Novemb er 2, 2022