### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03
- 24
- 00210
- CV

E. T. , Appellant

v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee

FROM THE 146TH DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY NO. 22DFAM336043 , THE HONORABLE DALLAS SIMS , JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
Mother E.T. appeals from the trial court ’ s final order terminating her parental rights to her three children

. See Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001. After a bench trial, the court found by clear and convincing evidence that statutory grounds for terminating her parental rights existed and that termination of those rights was in the child ren ’ s best interest. See id

. § 161.001(b)(1)(D) , (E), (N), (O), (2). Mother’ s court- appointed attorney has filed an Anders brief, concluding that the appeal is frivolous and without merit, along with a motion to withdraw. See Anders

v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967); In re P.M. , 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 & n.10 (Tex. 2016) (per curiam) (approving use of Anders procedure in appeals from terminations of parental rights). The brief meets the requirements of Anders by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advan ced on appeal. See 386 U.S. at 744; Taylor v. Texas Dep ’ t of Protective & Regul. Servs. , 160 S.W.3d 641, 646

- 47 (Tex. App.

—2 Austin 2005, pet. denied). Mother ’ s attorney has certified to this Court that he has provided Mother with a copy of the Anders brief and the motion to withdraw and has advised her of her rights to examine the appellate record and to file a pro se brief. T he Department of Family and Protective Services filed a response stating that it will not file a brief unless requested by this Court or after reviewing any pro se response , and t o date, Mother has not filed a pro se brief. Upon receiving an Anders brief, we must conduct a full examination of the record to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988); Taylor , 160 S.W.3d at 647. We have conducted an independent review of the entire record, including the Anders brief submitted on Mother ’ s behalf and have found nothing in the record that might arguably support an appeal

. We specifically reviewed the trial court ’ s findings as to Mother under subsections (D) and (E) and have found no nonfrivolous issues 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). We agree the appeal is frivolous and without merit and therefore affirm the trial court ’ s order terminating Mother ’ s parental rights. As for the motion to withdraw, the Supreme Court of Texas has held that the right to counsel in suits seeking the termination of parental rights extends to all proceedings in that
court , including the filing of a petition for review. P.M. , 520 S.W.3d at 27. Accordingly, counsel ’ s obligation to Mother has not yet been discharged. See id

. If after consulting with counsel Mother desires to file a petition for review, her attorney should timely file “a petition for review that satisfies the standards for an Anders brief.” See id . at 27

- 28. Counsel ’ s motion to withdraw is denied.3 __________________________________________ Darlene Byrne , Chief Justice Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Smith and Theofanis Affirmed Filed: July 24 , 2024