TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-20-00046-CV

D. R., Appellant

v.

Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee

FROM THE 340TH DISTRICT COURT OF TOM GREEN COUNTY

NO. C-18-0089-CPS, THE HONORABLE GARY L. BANKS, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N 

Denise1 appeals a final judgment terminating her parental rights to her son. 

Following trial on the merits, the trial court rendered judgment after finding by clear and 

convincing evidence that multiple statutory grounds support terminating her parental rights and 

that termination is in the best interest of the child. See Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), 

(N), (O), (P), (b)(2). Denise filed timely appeal.

Denise’s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw accompanied by

a brief concluding that any appeal is frivolous and without merit. See Anders v. California, 

386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967) (stating that court-appointed counsel who believes appeal is wholly 

frivolous should file motion to withdraw “accompanied by a brief referring to anything in the 

record that might arguably support the appeal”); In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 & n.10 (Tex. 

1

 We refer to appellant by a pseudonym. See Tex. Fam. Code § 109.002(d).
2

2016) (per curiam) (approving use of Anders procedure in appeals from termination of parental 

rights). Counsel’s brief meets the requirements of Anders by presenting a professional 

evaluation of the record demonstrating that there are no arguable grounds for reversal to be 

advanced on appeal. See 386 U.S. at 744; Taylor v. Texas Dep’t of Protective & Regulatory 

Servs., 160 S.W.3d 641, 646–47 (Tex. App.—Austin 2005, pet. denied) (applying Anders 

procedure in parental-rights termination case). Counsel has certified to this Court that he 

provided Denise with a copy of the Anders brief and motion to withdraw as counsel and a notice 

of her right to file a pro se brief. Appellee in this case, The Department of Family and Protective 

Services, filed a response indicating that it will not file a brief unless this Court requests one or 

the Department itself deems a brief necessary following Denise’s filing of a brief. Denise did 

not file a brief.

Upon receipt of an Anders brief, we must conduct a full examination of the 

proceedings to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 

80 (1988). After reviewing the record and the briefing, we find nothing that would arguably 

support a meritorious appeal. We thus agree with counsel that this appeal is frivolous and 

without merit.

We nevertheless deny counsel’s motion to withdraw. In P.M., the Supreme Court 

of Texas explained that a parent’s right to counsel in termination suits extends to “all 

proceedings in [the Supreme Court of Texas], including the filing of a petition for review.” See

520 S.W.3d at 27. Accordingly, counsel’s obligation to Denise has not yet been discharged. See 

id. If Denise, after consulting with counsel, desires to file a petition for review, counsel should 

timely file with the high court “a petition for review that satisfies the standards for an Anders 

brief.” See id. at 27–28.
3

For the reasons stated herein, we affirm the order terminating Denise’s parental 

rights and deny counsel’s motion to withdraw.

__________________________________________

Edward Smith, Justice

Before Justices Goodwin, Kelly, and Smith

Affirmed

Filed: May 1, 2020