COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS

IN THE INTEREST OF I.A.R., A CHILD

. § § § § § § No. 08-22-00233- CV Appeal from the
65th Judicial District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 2019 DCM 7904)

MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, R. R. ( Father ), appeals the trial court’s final order terminating h is parental rights
to h is child. 1 See T EX

. F AM

. C ODE A NN

. § 161.001 . After a bench trial, the trial court found by clear and convincing evidence that statutory grounds for terminating h is parental rights existed and that termination of those rights was in the child’s best interest. See id. § 161.001(b)(1)( N) and (O). After a thorough review of the record, in an Anders brief, R.R. ’s counsel concluded that
R.R. ’s appeal is frivolous and without merit. See Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967)

. Counsel certified to this Court that she provided R.R. with a copy of the Anders brief filed on h is

1 For the child ’ s privacy, we will refer to her by an alias and to her family members by their relationships to her or by aliases. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 9.8

. The parental right s of the child ’s mother were also terminated, but she did not appeal.2 behalf along with a copy of her motion to withdraw. Counsel also advised R.R. of h is right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se brief. To date, R.R. has not filed a pro se brief.
In Anders , the U.S. Supreme Court recognized that counse l appointed to represent the appellant in an appeal from a criminal conviction had no duty to pursue a frivolous matter on appeal. Anders , 386 U.S. at 744

. Thus, counsel was permitted to withdraw after informing the court
of his conclusion an d the efforts made in arriving at that conclusion. Id. As relevant to this cause, the Supreme Court of Texas has determined that the procedures set forth in Anders apply to an appeal from a case involving the termination of parental rights when court

- appoi nted counsel has determined an appeal is frivolous. See In re P.M. , 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 n.10 (Tex. 2016) (per curiam) ; In re J.B. , 296 S.W.3d 618, 619 (Tex. App.

— El Paso 2009, no pet.)

. Counsel’s brief meets the requirements of Anders by containing a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating that there are no arguable grounds for revers ing the termination order. Upon receiving an Anders brief, we are required to conduct a full examination of all the proceedings to determi ne whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988) . We have thoroughl y reviewed the entire record, including the Anders brief, and found nothing that would arguably support an appeal. We have specifically reviewed the trial court’s findings as to R

. R . under Texas Family Code § 161.001(b)(1), subsections ( N ) and (O) , and we
found no non

- frivolous is sues that could be raised on appeal with respect to those findings. See In
re N.G. , 577 S.W.3d 230 , 237 (Tex. 2019) (per curiam) ; see also T EX

. F AM

. C ODE A NN . § 161.001(b)(1)

. We agree with counsel’s professional assessment that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s order terminating Appellant R.R.’s parental rights.3 Counsel’s M otion to W ithdraw
R

. R .’s counsel has filed a motion to withdraw, citing as grounds for withdrawal her filing
of an Anders brief. However, when an Anders brief is filed in a parental termination appeal, the appellant’s right to a ppointed counsel extends to “all proceedings in this [Texas Supreme Court], including the filing of a petition for review.” In re P.M. , 520 S.W.3d at 27 ( citing Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 107.013(a)(1) ). Accordingly, couns el’s obligations to R.R. have not yet been discharged.
See id. In the event R.R. advises appointed counsel that he wishes to challenge our decision by filing a petition for review, “counsel’s obligations can be satisfied by filing a petition for review
that satisfies the standard s for an Anders brief.” Id. at 27

- 28

. Accordingly, R.R. ’s counsel’s motion
to withdraw is denied.

LISA J. SOTO , Justice January 25, 2023 Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox, and Soto, JJ.