### 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 DISTR ICT COURT OF TOM GRE EN COUNTY NO. C
- 18
- 0089
- CPS, T HE HONORABLE GARY L. BANKS, JUDGE PRESIDING

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

Denise 1 appeals a final judgment terminating her parental rights to her son

. Following trial on the merits , the trial court rendered judgment after find ing by clear and

c onvincing evidence that mul ti ple s ta tutory 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 appea l

.

Denise ’ s court

- appointed counsel has f iled a motion to withdr aw acco mpanied 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 who lly frivolous should file motion to withd raw “ac companied 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 W e refer t o appellant by a pseud onym . See Tex. Fam. Code § 109.002(d).2

2016) (per curiam) (approving use of Anders procedure in appeals f rom termination of parental righ ts) . Cou nsel’s brief mee ts the requirements of Anders by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating that there are no a rguable grounds for reversal to be advanced on appeal. See 386 U.S. at 744; Taylo r v. Texas Dep’t of Protective & Re gulato ry Serv s. , 160 S .W.3d 641, 646

– 47 (Tex. App.

— Austin 2005, pet. denied) (applying Anders procedure in parental

- rights termination case ). C ounsel has certified to this Court that he provided Denise with a copy of the Anders brief and motion to with dra w as c ounsel and a not ice of her right to file a pro se brief. Appellee in this case , The Department of Family an d Pro tective Services , filed a response indicating th at it will not file a brief unless this Court requests on e or the Department itself de ems a bri ef nece ssar y fol lowing Denise ’ s filing o f a br ief

. 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 whol ly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75,
80 (1988). After reviewing the record and t he briefing , we find nothing that would arguably support a meritorious appeal. We thus ag ree with counsel that this appeal is friv olous and without merit. We nevertheless deny counsel’s motion to withdraw

. I n P. M

. , the Su preme Court of Texas explained that a parent ’ s right to counsel in termination suits extends t o “all proceedings in [the Supr eme Court of Texas ], including the filing o f a petition for revi ew.” See 520 S.W.3d at 27 . Accordingly, counsel’ s ob lig a tion t o Denise has not yet been discharged. See id. If Denise , after consulting wi th counsel, desires to file a petitio n for review, counsel should timely file with the high court “a petition for review that satisfies the standards for an An ders br ief.” See i d. 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