### IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS No. 10 - 23 - 00083 - CV IN THE INTEREST OF D.P., A.P., AND V.P., CHILDREN

From the 361st District Court Brazos County, Texas Trial Court No. 22 - 000470 - CV - 361

MEMORANDUM OPINION Mother appeals from a final order terminating her parental rights to three children

— D.P., A.P., and V.P. Counsel for Mother has n ow filed a motion to withdraw and an Anders brief asserting that he diligently reviewed the record and that, in his opinion, the appeal is frivolous. See generally Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967); In re E.L.Y. , 69 S.W.3d 838, 841 (Tex. App.

— Waco 2002, order) (applying Anders to appeals from the termination of parental rights). Counsel’s brief meets the requirements of Anders by presenting a professional evaluation demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds t o advance on appeal. See In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 n.9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (“In Texas, an Anders briefIn the Interest of D.P., A.P., and V.P., c hildren Page 2

need not specifically advance ‘arguable’ points or error if counsel finds none, but it must provide record references to facts and procedur al history and set out pertinent legal authorities.”); Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Counsel for Mother has carefully discussed why, under controlling authority, there is no reversible error in the trial court’s order of termination. Counsel has informed us that he has: (1) examined the record and found no arguable grounds to advance on appeal and (2) served Mother with a copy of the brief and instructions on how to obtain the record. By letter, Mother’s attorney inf ormed Mother of her right to review the record and to file a response to the Anders brief, but she has not done so. See Anders , 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400 ; Kelly v. State , 436 S.W.3d 313, 319

- 20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); Stafford , 813 S.W.2d at 510 n.3; High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978); see also In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 408

- 09. Upon receiving an Anders brief, we must conduct a full examination of all the proceedings to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S. Ct. 346, 351 , 102 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988). An appeal is “wholly frivolous” or “without merit” when it “lacks any basis in law or fact” McCoy v. Court of Appeals , 486 U.S. 429, 438 n.10, 108 S. Ct. 1985, 1902 , 100 L. Ed. 2d 440 (1988). We have reviewed the entire record and counsel’s brief and have found nothing that would arguably support an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 827

- 28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (“Due to the nature of Anders briefs, by indicating in the opinion that it considered the issues raised inIn the Interest of D.P., A.P., and V.P., c hildren Page 3

the briefs and reviewed the record for reversible error but found none, the cour t of appeals met the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1.”); Stafford , 813 S.W.2d at 509. We therefore affirm the trial court’s order of termination. We also remind Mother’s appointed appellate counsel that if Mother, after consulting with counsel, desires to file a petition for review, counsel is still under a duty to timely file with the Texas Supreme Court “a petition for review that satisfies the standard for an Anders brief.” In re P.M. , 520 S.W.3d 24, 27

- 28 (Tex. 2016) (per curia m); see also T EX . F AM . C ODE A NN . § 107.016; In re G.P. , 503 S.W.3d 531, 535 (Tex. App.

— Waco 2016, pet. denied). Accordingly, we deny counsel’s motion to withdraw.

STEVE SMITH Justice Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Johnson, and Justice Smith Affirmed Opinion delivered and filed July 12, 2023 [CV06]