### IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS No. 10 - 13 - 00276 - CV IN THE INTEREST OF A .C., R.P., AND A.P., CHILDREN

From the 74th District Court McLennan County, Texas Trial Court No. 2012
- 1355 - 3
MEMORANDUM OPINION Angel P. appeals from a judgment that terminated the parent

- child relationship between her and her children, A.C., R.P., and A. P

. See T EX
. F AM
. C ODE A NN . § 161.001 (West 2008). In presenting this a ppeal, appointed counsel has filed an Anders brief in support of his motion to withdraw. See Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed.2d 493 (1967). We grant counsel's motion and affirm. The procedures set forth in Anders v. Californ ia are applicable to appeals of orders terminating parental rights. In re E.L.Y. , 69 S.W.3d 838, 841 (Tex. App.

— Waco 2002, order) (per curiam) (applying Anders to parental termination appeals). See also Taylor v. Texas Dep't of Protective & Regulatory Se rvs. , 160 S.W.3d 641, 646

- 647 (Tex. App.

— AustinIn the Interest of A.C., R.P., and A.P., Children Page 2

2005, pet. denied). In support of his motion to withdraw, counsel certifies he has conducted a conscientious examination of the record and, in his opinion, the record reflects no potentially plausible basis to support an appeal. Counsel certifies he has diligently researched the law applicable to the facts and issues and candidly discusses why, in his professional opinion, the appeal is frivolous. In re D.A.S. , 973 S.W.2d 296, 297 (Tex. 1998). Counsel has demonstrated he has complied with the requirements of Anders by (1) providing a copy of the brief to Angel and (2) notifying her of her right to file a pro se response if she desired to do so. Id . Angel has not filed a pro se response to the Anders brief

. The order of termination recites that Angel: knowingly placed or knowingly allowed the children to remain in conditions or surroundings which endangered the physical or emotional well

- being of the children; engaged in conduct or knowingly placed the ch ildren with persons who engaged in conduct which endangered the physical or emotional well

being of the children; constructively abandoned the children who had been in the permanent or temporary managing conservatorship of the Department of Family and Pro tective Services or an authorized agency for not less than 6 months; and failed to comply with the provisions of a court order that specifically established the actions necessary for the parent to obtain the return of the children who had been in the per manent or temporary managing conservatorship of the Department for not less than nine months as a result of the children's removal from the parent under Chapter 262 for the abuse and neglect of the children.In the Interest of A.C., R.P., and A.P., Children Page 3

T EX
. F AM
. C ODE A NN . § 161.001(1)(D), (E), (N), & (O) (West Supp. 2012). Appellate counsel was appointed for Angel. A motion for new trial was filed by Angel's appellate counsel, but there is nothing in the record to indicate that a hearing was requested or held on the motion. By the Anders brief, co unsel evaluates potential issues on all three grounds supporting termination. Counsel acknowledges that only one statutory ground is necessary to support an order of termination in addition to a finding that termination is in the children's best interest. See In re A.V. , 113 S.W.3d 355, 362 (Tex. 2003). He then analyzes the evidence to support the termination order under section 161.001(1)(O) and the best interest of the children and concludes there is no arguable error. Counsel's brief evidences a prof essional evaluation of the record for error, and we conclude that counsel performed the duties required of an appointed counsel. Standard of Review in Termination Cases Due process requires application of the clear and convincing standard of proof in

case s involving involuntary termination of parental rights. In re J.F.C. , 96 S.W.3d 256, 263 (Tex. 2002). Clear and convincing evidence is that measure or degree of proof which will produce in the mind of the trier of fact a firm belief or conviction as to t he truth of the allegations sought to be established. See T EX
. F AM
. C ODE A NN . § 101.007 (West 2008). See also In re C.H. , 89 S.W.3d 17, 25

- 26 (Tex. 2002). The Family Code permits a court to order termination of parental rights if theIn the Interest of A.C., R.P., and A.P., Children Page 4

petitioner establis hes one or more acts or omissions enumerated under subsection (1) of the statute and also proves that termination of the parent

- child relationship is in the best interest of the child. See T EX
. F AM
. C ODE A NN . § 161.001 (West 2008); Holley v. Adams , 544 S. W.2d 367, 370 (Tex. 1976). Failure to Comply with Court Order Parental rights may be terminated if a parent fails to comply with a court order that specifically establishes the actions necessary for the parent to obtain the return of a child who has been in the permanent or temporary managing conservatorship of the Department for not less than nine months as a result of the child's removal under Chapter 262 of the Family Code for the abuse or neglect of the child. See T EX
. F AM
. C ODE A NN . § 161.001(1)(O) ( West 2008); In re J.F.C. , 96 S.W.3d at 278

- 79. We agree with counsel's evaluation that there is clear and convincing evidence to support termination under section 161.001(1)(O). Further, because only one statutory ground is necessary to support an order of termination, we need not evaluate the evidence as it pertains to the other grounds for termination alleged, subsections (D), (E), and (N). Best Interest of the Children Notwithstanding the sufficiency of the evidence to support termination under sectio n 161.001(1), we must also find clear and convincing evidence that termination of the parent

- child relationship was in the children's best interest. See T EX
. F AM
. C ODE A NN . § 161.001(2). Evidence that proves one or more statutory grounds for terminationIn the Interest of A.C., R.P., and A.P., Children Page 5

may also constitute evidence illustrating that termination is in the child's best interest. See In re C.H. , 89 S.W.3d at 28. There is a long

- standing non

- exhaustive list of factors for a court to consider in deciding the best interest of a child in a ter mination case. See Holley , 544 S.W.2d at 371

- 72. We agree with counsel's evaluations that there is clear and convincing evidence under the appropriate legal and factual sufficiency standards for the jury to have determined that termination of the parent

- child relationship was in the best interest of A.P., R.P., and A.C. Summary Upon receiving a "frivolous appeal" brief, this Court must conduct a full examination of all proceedings to determine whether the case is wholly frivolous. See Penson v. Ohio , 48 8 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S. Ct. 346, 349

- 50, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988); see also In re M.A.R. , No. 10

- 10

- 00237

- CV, 2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 3596, at *2 (Tex. App.

— Waco May 11, 2011, no pet.) (mem. op.). After our review of the entire record and counsel's brief,

we a gree with counsel that there are no plausible grounds for appeal. See Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 827

- 28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's judgment. Motion to Withdraw In accordance with Anders , counsel has filed a m otion to withdraw. See Anders , 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; see also In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 n.17 (Tex.In the Interest of A.C., R.P., and A.P., Children Page 6

Crim. App. 2008). We grant counsel's motion to withdraw. 1 Within five days of the date of this Court's opinion, counsel is ordered to send a copy of the opinion and judgment to Angel and to advise her of her right to pursue a petition for review in the Texas Supreme Court. See In re K.D. , 127 S.W.3d 66, 68 n.3 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, no pet.). Conclusion The motion to withdraw is granted and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

TOM GRAY Chief Justice Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Scoggins Affirmed and motion granted Opinion delivered and filed November 14, 2013 [CV06]

1 No substitute co unsel will be appointed. Should Angel wish to seek further review of this case by this Court or the Texas Supreme Court, she must either retain an attorney to file a motion for rehearing or a petition for review or file a pro se motion for re hearing or a petition for review. Any motion for rehearing must be filed within fifteen days of this opinion. Any petition for review must be filed within forty

- five days after the date of either this opinion or the last ruling by this Court on all timel y - filed motions for rehearing. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 53.7(a). Any petition for review must comply with the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 53.2. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 53.2.