## In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06

- 19

- 00091

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF J.C., JR., A CHILD

On Appeal from the County Court at Law Lamar County, Texas Trial Court No. 87472

Before Morriss, C.J., Burgess and Stevens, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss2 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Based on the verdict of a Hunt County jury, the trial court terminated the parental rights of J.C., Sr., to his child, J.C., Jr. J.C., Sr., is represented on appeal by court

- appointed counsel , who has filed a brief in accordance with the requirements of Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967)

. His c ourt

- appointed counsel has concluded, after a review of the record, that this appeal is frivolous and without merit. Because we agree, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. However, in consideration of appointed counsel’s continuing obligation to represent J.C., Sr., for purposes of any furt h er appellate review, we deny counsel’s motion to withdraw. The procedures set forth in Anders are applicable to an ap peal from a trial court’s order terminating parental rights when an appellant’s appointed appellate counsel concludes that t her e

ar e no nonfrivolous issues to assert on appeal. See In re P.M. , 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 (Tex. 2016) (citing In re D.A.S. , 973 S.W.2d 296, 297 n.10 (Tex. 1998) ); In re P.M.H. , No. 06

- 10

- 00008

- CV,
20 10 WL 1794390, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Texarkana May 6, 2010, no pet.) (mem. op.). The Anders brief filed by J.C., Sr. ’s , counsel presents a n evaluation of the record demonstrating why t her e are no arguable grounds for reversal . Counsel has established that he provided J.C., Sr., with a copy of his brief, provided him with a copy of the appellate record, and notified him of his right to file
a pro se response. By letter dated November 25, 2019 , this Court informed J.C., Sr., that any pro se response was due on or before December 16, 2019. On December 30, 2019, this Court further informed J.C., Sr., that the case would be set for submission on the briefs on January 21, 2020. We have received neither a pro se response nor a motion for extens ion of time to file a pro se
response.3 Court

- appointed counsel’s brief meets the requirements of Anders by providing a n evaluation of the record and stating why t her e are no arguable grounds for reversal on appeal. See Anders , 386 U.S. at 744

. Having thoroughly reviewed the record and counsel’s brief, we agree with counsel’s assessment that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the record that could arguably support the appeal. See id. (emphasizing that rev iewing court, not counsel, determines, after full examination of proceedings, whet her the appeal is wholly frivolous). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s final order terminating J.C., Sr.’s, parental rights to J.C.,
Jr. We deny counsel’s motion to w ithdraw, however. Once counsel is appointed by the trial court, he may be permitted to withdraw only for good cause. P.M. , 520 S.W.3d at 27

. In cases where the Department of Family & Protective Services seeks termination of the parent

- child rela tionship , “counsel’s belief that the client has no grounds to seek furt her review from the court of appeals’ decision” is not “good cause” sufficient to justify counsel’s withdrawal. Id. Instead, an attorney’s duty to his or h er client extends through th e exhaustion or waiver of all appeals in relation to the order. Id. If , after consultation, J.C., Sr., wishes to pursue review by the Supreme Court of Texas, counsel may satisfy his obligation to represent him on appeal “ by filing a petition for review that satisfies the standards for an Anders brief.” Id. at 2 8

.4 We aff irm the trial court’s judgment

.

Josh R. Morriss, III Chief Justice Date Submitted: January 21, 2020 Date Decided: January 29 , 2020