AFFIRMED and Opinion Filed February 16, 2024 

# S

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-23-00460-CV IN THE INTEREST OF Z.D.R.R. AND Z. U.C., CHILDREN On Appeal from the County Court Kaufman County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 110045-CC

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Burns, Justi ce Molberg, and Justice Goldstein Opinion by Chief Justice Burns Mother brought this acceler ated appeal from the tr ial court’s modification order in a suit filed by the Departme nt of Family Services (DFPS) for conservatorship and for termination of Mothe r’s parental rights. Following a trial, the jury determined that ea ch of the children’s fathers should be their respective child’s sole managing conservator, and the trial court signed an order limiting Mother’s periods of possession. Mother’s court-appointed counsel filed a notice of appeal on Mother’s behalf and has since filed a motion to withdraw along with a brief supporting that motion, stating that in her professional opinion the appeal is–2– without merit and that there are no arguable grounds for reversal. See Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). Anders procedures are appropriate in an a ppeal from a trial court’s final order in a suit brought by DFPS for the protection of a child, for conservatorship, or for parental-rights termination, including those in which the parent’s rights are not ultimately terminated or DFPS does not become the child’s conservator. See In the Interest of J.C ., No. 05-22-00043-CV, 2022 WL 258 2546, at *2 (Tex. App—Dallas July 8, 2022, no pet.) ( Anders procedures apply in termination or parental rights cases, including those in which termination is sought but not granted); In the Interest of E.L.W., 01-17-00546-CV, 2017 WL 5712545, at * 1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Nov. 28, 2017, no pet.) (same). An a ttorney has an ethical obligation to refuse to prosecute a frivolous appeal. In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). If an appointed attorney fi nds a case to be wholly frivolous, his obligation to his client is to seek leave to withdraw. Id . Counsel’s obligation to the appellate court is to assure it, through an Anders brief, that, after a complete review of the record, the request to withdraw is well-founded. Id

. Here, Mother’s counsel provide d Mother with a copy of the Anders brief and advised Mother of her right to examine the record and file her own response. This Court separately provided Mother with a copy of the brief and notified her of her right to examine the record and file a response. Mother has not responded.–3– In her brief, Mother’s counsel demonstr ated that she review ed the record and concluded the appeal was w ithout merit and frivolous. See Anders , 386 U.S. at 744. She states that in her professional opini on no arguable grounds for reversal exist and that any appeal would therefore lack merit. See id. Counsel’s brief meets the minimum Anders requirements by presenting a prof essional evaluation of the record and stating why there are no arguable grounds for reversal on appeal. See id. ; Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 409 n.23. We have inde pendently reviewed the record and counsel’s brief and we agree the appeal is frivolous and without merit. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s modification order.

230460F.P05 /Robert D. Burns, III / ROBERT D. BURNS, III CHIEF JUSTICE–4– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT

IN THE INTEREST OF Z.D.R.R. AND Z.U.C., CHILDREN

No. 05-23-00460-CV On Appeal from the County Court, Kaufman County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 110045-CC. Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Burns. Justices Molberg and Goldstein participating. In accordance with this Court’s opini on of this date, the trial court’s modification order is AFFIRMED

. Judgment entered February 16, 2024