Opinion issued June 28, 2018

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01 - 1 8 - 00 090 - CV

——————————— IN THE INTEREST OF J. J . N. , A Child
On Appeal from the 3 14 th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Ca se No. 20 1 6 - 0 706 3 J MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, J
. N
. , challenges the trial court’s final order terminating h is parental rights to h is minor child , and appointing appellee, the Department of Family and Protective Services , as the child’s sole permanent managing conservator
. Appellant’s appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and an Anders brief, asserting that the appeal is without merit and there are no arguable grounds for2

reversal. See Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967). We affirm the trial court’s judgment. The procedures set forth in Anders are applicable to an appeal from a trial court’s order terminating parental rights when, as here, the appellant’s appointed appellate counsel concludes that there are no non

- frivolous issues to assert on appeal. In re A.M. , 495 S.W.3d 573, 582 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 2016, pet. denied); In re K.D. , 127 S.W.3d 66, 67 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, no pet.). Counsel has filed an Anders brief in which s he concludes that, after a thorough review of the record, appellant’s appeal of the termination of her parental rights is frivolous and without merit. See Anders , 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; In re K.D. , 127 S.W.3d at 67. Counsel’s brief meets the minimum Anders requirements by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and stating why there are no arguable grounds for reversal on appeal. See Anders , 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400 ; In re K.D. , 127 S.W.3d at 67 . Counsel has certified that s he delivered to appellant at his last known address a copy of the brief and “[a] disk containing the appellate record” and has informed him of h is right to access the appellate record and file a pro se response. See In re K.D. , 127 S.W.3d at 67. Additionally, t his Court has notified appellant of h is right to review the record and file a pro se response. Appellant has not filed a response.3

When we receive an Anders b rief from an appellant’s appointed attorney who asserts that no arguable grounds for appeal exist, we must determine that issue independently by conducting our own review of the entire record. Johnson v. Dep’t of Family & Protective Servs. , No. 01

- 08

- 00749

- CV, 2010 WL 5186806, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] Dec. 23, 2010, no pet.) (mem. op.) ; see In re K.D. , 127 S.W.3d at 67. Here, w e have independently reviewed the entire record and counsel’s Anders brief and agree with counsel’s assessment that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court but deny counsel’s motion to withdraw. See In re P.M. , 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 (Tex. 2016); In re A.M. , 495 S.W.3d at 582. Counsel ’ s duty to h er client extends through the exhaustion or waiver of “all appeals.” T EX . F AM . C ODE A NN . § 107.016(3)(B) (West 2014) . If appellant wishes to pursue review in the Supreme Court of Texas, “appointed counsel ’ s obligations can be satisfied by filing a petition f or review that satisfies the standards for an Anders brief.” In re P.M. , 520 S.W.3d at 27

– 28. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Jennings and Lloyd.