### IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10 - 24 - 00012 - CV IN THE INTEREST OF M.R.M., B.E.M., AND B.S.M., CHILDREN

From the County Court at Law Hill County, Texas Trial Court No. CV174
- 23CCL

MEMORANDUM OPINION
The father and mother of M.R.M., B.E.M., and B.S.M. each filed a notice of appeal of a judgment terminating their parental rights in this proceeding. See, generally, T EX
. F AM
. C ODE § 161.001. On February 9, 2024, the father, D.M., filed a motion to dismi ss the appeal stating that the parties had reached an agreement as to the father and that he no longer desire s to continue with the appeal. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 42.1(a)(1). We grant the motion to dismiss as to the appeal by the father, D.M.
The mother’s a ppointed counsel has filed an Anders brief asserting that the appeal presents no issue of arguable merit. See Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967). The procedures set forth in Anders v. California are generallyIn the Interest of M.R.M., B.E.M., and B.S.M., Children Page 2 applicable to appeals of judgments that terminate parental rights. In re E.L.Y. , 69 S.W.3d 838, 841 (Tex. App.

— Waco 2002, order). Counsel advised the mother that counsel had filed the brief pursuant to Anders and that she had the right to file a pro se response with
this Court

. The mother was also advised of her right to review the record prior to filing
a response. The mother did not file a pro se response with this Court. Counsel included a recitation of the procedural history and rele vant facts in the Anders brief and asserted that counsel had reviewed the record for any potentially
meritorious issues , including jurisdictional issues, and determined there are no non

frivolous issues to raise in this appeal. Counsel's brief discusses t he sufficiency of the evidence as to each of the predicate acts upon which the termination was granted, including Section 161.001(b)(1)(D) and (E), as well as best interest

. Counsel's brief
includes a professional evaluation of the record, and we conclude that counsel performed the duties required of appointed counsel. See Anders , 386 U.S. at 744; see also In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d 403, 406

- 408 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Upon the filing of an Anders brief, as the reviewing appellate court, it is our duty

to independently examine the record to decide whether counsel is correct in determining that an appeal is frivolous. See In re G.P ., 503 S.W.3d 531, 536 (Tex. App.

— Waco 2016, pet. denied). Arguments are frivolous when they "cannot conceivably persuade the
court." McCoy v. Court of Appeals , 486 U.S. 429, 436, 108 S. Ct. 1895, 100 L. Ed. 2d 440 (1988).In the Interest of M.R.M., B.E.M., and B.S.M., Children Page 3 Having carefully reviewed the entire record and the Anders brie f, we have determined that the appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's judgment.
C ONCLUSION The appeal filed by the father is dismissed. As to the mother, h aving found the appeal is frivolous , we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

TOM GRAY Chief Justice Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Johnson , and Justice Smith Dismissed in part; Otherwise a ffirmed Opinion delivered and filed June 13, 2024 [ CV06 ]