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, TEX.

FAM. CODE § 161.001. On February 9, 2024, the father, D.M., filed a motion to dismiss the 

appeal stating that the parties had reached an agreement as to the father and that he no 

longer desires to continue with the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1). We grant the 

motion to dismiss as to the appeal by the father, D.M.

The mother’s appointed 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 generally 
In 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 relevant 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 nonfrivolous issues to raise in this appeal. Counsel's brief discusses the 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 brief, we have 

determined that the appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's 

judgment.

CONCLUSION

The appeal filed by the father is dismissed. As to the mother, having 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 affirmed

Opinion delivered and filed June 13, 2024

[CV06]