O pinion filed September 21 , 2023



### In The 

# Eleventh Court of Appeals

________ _

_ No. 11

- 2 3

- 00 142

- C V

__________
IN THE INTEREST OF B.H. AND B.H. , CHILD REN

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 T EX

. F AM

. C ODE

. A NN

. § 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 were2 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 t he y professionally and conscientiously examine the record and applicable law and conclude that the appeal s are frivolous and without merit. The
brief s 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. Cri m. 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 brief s 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 e fforts 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 a ppeal

. See Kelly v. State , 436 S.W.3d 313, 318

– 20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).
Neither t he 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 ha ve 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 reg ard, both the mother and the father executed an affidavit of voluntary3 relinquishment of parental rights with respect to both children. See F AM

. § 161.001(b)(1)(K)

. Counsel for both the mother and the father have motions to withdraw in
addition to the ir briefs. We deny both motion s 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.”)
I n parental termination cases, court

- appointed counsel ’ s duty to his or her client generally extends “through the exhau stion 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 w e affirm the order of the trial

court.

JO HN M. BAILEY
CHIEF JUSTICE

September 21 , 202 3
Panel consists of: Bailey , C.J., Trotter , J. , and Williams , J.