### IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10
- 20
- 00204
- CV
IN THE INTEREST OF T.R. AND K.B. , CHILD REN

From the 361st District Court Brazos County, Texas Trial Court No. 19
- 000929
- CV
- 361

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant T.R. , Sr. challenges the trial court’s order appointing the Department of Family and Protective Services as p ermanent managing conservator of his child, T.R. 1 T.R., Sr., who is incarcerated in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division, requested that his mother be appointed temporary or permanent possessory or managing conservator. Appellant’s appointed appellate counsel filed an Anders brief, asserting that he has diligently reviewed the record and that, in h is opinion, the appeal is
frivolous. See generally Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed. 493 (1967);

1 The case is captioned in the “ Interest of T.R. and K.B., Children. ” T.R. and K.B. share a mother but have different fathers. This appeal involves only T.R. and his father, T.R., Sr.In the Interest of T.R. and K.B., Children Page 2

see also In re E.L.Y. , 69 S.W.3d 838, 841 (Tex. App.

— Waco 2002, order) (applying Anders to termination appeals). Because we could not determine from the brief whether counsel
had notified T.R. , Sr. of his pro se rights, we requested that counsel do so. Counsel responded that he provided a copy of the Anders brief to T.R., Sr. , informed T.R. , Sr. of his right to review the record and file a response, and informed T.R. , Sr. that he would be
entitled t o have counsel file a petition for review in the Texas Supreme Court i f the trial court’s judgment was affirmed by this court. We then notified T.R. , Sr. that he had the right to file a pro se response to the Anders brief and that he should do so within t hirty days or file a motion requesting an extension of time. T.R. , Sr. responded and requested additional time to file a response and also noted that he had not received a copy of the record. We requested counsel provide a copy of the record to T.R. , Sr. and granted T.R. , Sr. ’s request for an extension of time . T.R. , S r. was notified that his response to the Anders brief must be filed on or before December 4, 2020. Counsel notified this Court that he sent a copy of the record to T.R. , Sr. As of the date of this Memorandum Opinion, T.R. , S r. has not filed a response to the Anders brief. I. Anders Brief
Pursuant to Anders , appellant's court

- appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief stating that h is review of the record yielded no error upon which an appeal can be predicated

. Counsel's brief meets the requirements of Anders as it presents a professional evaluation demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to advance on appeal. See
In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 n.9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (“In Texas, an Anders bri ef need not specifically advance ‘arguable’ points of error if counsel finds none, but it mustIn the Interest of T.R. and K.B., Children Page 3

provide record references to the facts and procedural history and set out pertinent legal authorities.”) (citing Hawkins v. State , 112 S.W.3d 340, 343

- 44 (Tex. A pp. — Corpus Christi 2003, no pet.)); Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (en banc). In compliance with High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978), appellant ’ s counsel has carefully discussed why, und er controlling authority, there
are no reversible errors in the trial court ’ s judgment. Counsel has informed this Court that he has: (1) examined the record and found no arguable grounds to advance on appeal; (2) served a copy of the brief on appellant; and (3) provided appellant with a copy
of the record and informed him of his r ight to file a pro se response. See Anders , 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; Stafford , 813 S.W.2d at 510 n.3; see also In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d
at 409 n.23. More than an adequate period of time has passed, and appellant has not filed
a pro se respon se. Id

. at 409. II. Independent Review Upon receiving an Anders brief, we must conduct a full examination of all the proceedings to determine whether the case is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S. Ct. 346, 349

- 50, 102 L. Ed. 2d 30 0 (1988). We have reviewed the entire record and counsel's brief and have found nothing that would arguably support an appeal. See
Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 827

- 28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (“Due to the nature of
Anders briefs, by indicating in the opinion that it considered the issues raised in the briefs and reviewed the record for reversible error but found none, the court of appeals met the requirement of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1.”); Stafford , 813 S.W.2d at 509.In the Interest of T.R. and K.B., Children Page 4 III. Conclusion Based on the foregoing, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. In addition, we remind appellant's appointed appellate counsel that if appellant, after consulting with counsel, desires to file a petition for review, counsel is still under a duty to timely file with the Texas Supreme Court “a petition for review that satisfies the standards for an
Anders brief.” In re P.M. , 520 S.W.3d 24, 27

- 28 (Tex. 2016); see In re G.P. , 503 S.W.3d 531, 535 (Tex. App.

— Waco 2016, pet. denied); see also T EX

. F AM

. C ODE A NN

. § 107.016(2).

REX D. DAVIS Justice Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Neill Judgment affirmed Opinion delivered and filed December 30, 2020 [ CV 06]