Opinion filed September 21, 2023

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals __________

No. 11-23-00142-CV

__________

IN THE INTEREST OF B.H. AND B.H., CHILDREN

On Appeal from the 326th District Court

Taylor County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 10776-CX

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

This is an appeal from an order in which the trial court terminated the parental 

rights of the mother and the father of B.H. and B.H. The trial court found, by clear 

and convincing evidence, that the mother and the father executed unrevoked or 

irrevocable affidavits of relinquishment of their parental rights for each child

pursuant to subsection 161.001(b)(1)(K) of the Texas Family Code. See TEX. FAM.

CODE. ANN. § 161.001(b)(1)(K) (West 2022). The trial court also found by clear 

and convincing evidence that termination of the parental rights of both parents were 
2

in the children’s best interest. Id. § 161.001(b)(2). Both parents appealed. We

affirm.

The court-appointed attorneys for both the mother and the father have filed 

briefs in which they professionally and conscientiously examine the record and 

applicable law and conclude that the appeals are frivolous and without merit. The 

briefs meet the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by 

presenting a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating why there are 

no arguable grounds to be advanced. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406–08 

(Tex. Crim. App. 2008); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel 

Op.] 1978).

Each attorney has provided the mother and the father with a copy of the

respective briefs and motions, and a letter explaining to the mother and the father 

their right to review the record and file a pro se response. Counsel for the father sent 

the record to the father by regular and certified mail but the mail was refused. 

Counsel for the mother provided a pro se motion for access to the appellate record

by regular and certified mail but the mail was also refused. Repeated efforts were 

also made by this court to ensure access to the court by the mother and the father 

and to apprise the parties of the pendency of this appeal and of the actions by counsel 

on appeal. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 318–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).

Neither the mother nor the father has filed a response to either counsel’s brief.

We conclude that the mother’s counsel and the father’s counsel have satisfied 

their duties under Anders, Schulman, and Kelly. Following the procedures outlined 

in Anders and Schulman, we have independently reviewed the record in this cause, 

and we agree that both the mother’s appeal and the father’s appeal are without merit. 

In that regard, both the mother and the father executed an affidavit of voluntary 
3

relinquishment of parental rights with respect to both children. See FAM.

§ 161.001(b)(1)(K).

Counsel for both the mother and the father have motions to withdraw in 

addition to their briefs. We deny both motions to withdraw in light of the Texas 

Supreme Court’s decision in In re P.M. because neither counsel has shown “good 

cause” other than the determination that an appeal would be frivolous. See 520 

S.W.3d 24, 27 (Tex. 2016) (“[A]n Anders motion to withdraw brought in the court 

of appeals, in the absence of additional grounds for withdrawal, may be premature.”) 

In parental termination cases, court-appointed counsel’s duty to his or her client 

generally extends “through the exhaustion of appeals” “including the filing of a 

petition for review” in the Texas Supreme Court. Id. “[A]ppointed counsel’s 

obligations can be satisfied by filing a petition for review that satisfies the standards 

for an Anders brief.” Id. at 27–28.

This Court’s Ruling

We deny counsels’ motions to withdraw, and we affirm the order of the trial 

court. 

JOHN M. BAILEY

CHIEF JUSTICE

September 21, 2023

Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,

Trotter, J., and Williams, J.