1 In The 

### Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

________________ NO. 09
- 22
- 00137
- CV



### ________________ IN THE INTEREST OF K.Y.

________________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 317 th District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. F- 238,197

________________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant Father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his child,
K.Y. 1 See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001. The trial court found, by clear and convincing evidence, that statutory grounds exist for termination and that termination is in the best interest of the child. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(b)(1)(D) , (E), (N), (O), ( Q), (2).

1 To protect the identity of the minor, we use initials to refer to the child. See Tex. R. App. P. 9.8(b)(2).2 Appellant’s court

- appointed appellate counsel submitted a brief in which counsel contends there are no meritorious issues for appeal ; counsel contemporaneously filed a motion to withdraw

. See Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967); In re L.D.T ., 1 61 S.W.3d 728, 731 (Tex. App.

— Beaumont 2005, no pet .). The brief provides counsel’s professional evaluation of the record, discusses the evidence at trial and the applicable legal standard, the trial court’s ruling, and why the trial court’s ruling is sup ported by sufficient evidence. Counsel concludes there are no arguable grounds to be advanced on appeal. Counsel certified that Appellant was served with a copy of the Anders brief. On July 12, 2022, this Court notified Appellant of his right to file a pro se response, as well as the August 11, 2022 deadline for doing so. This Court received no pro

- se response from the Appellant. We have independently reviewed the entire record and counsel’s brief, and we conclude that there are no arguable grounds for revi ew, that no reversible error exists, and that Appellant’s appeal is frivolous. See Anders , 386 U.S. at 744 (emphasizing that the reviewing court

— and not counsel

— determines, after full examination of proceedings, whether the appeal is wholly frivolous). As a result, we affirm the trial court’s termination of Appellant’s parental rights. We further find no arguable error requiring us to order appointment of new counsel to re

- brief this appeal . Compare Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).3 But we deny the motion to withdraw because this is a parental termination case and counsel’s motion to withdraw does not show “good cause” for withdrawal.
See In re P.M ., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 (Tex. 2016) (In a parental termination case when the at torney files an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw, “an Anders motion to withdraw brought in the court of appeals, in the absence of additional grounds for withdrawal, may be premature.”). An attorney appointed under section 107.013(a)(1) of the Texas F amily Code continues to represent an indigent parent as outlined under section 107.016 of the Texas Family Code until the earliest of either the date the suit is dismissed, the date that all appeals in relation to any final order terminating parental right s are exhausted or waived, or the date the attorney is relieved of the attorney’s duties or replaced by another attorney after a finding of good cause is rendered by the court on the record. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. §§ 107.013(a)(1), 107.016(2); In re P.M ., 520 S.W.3d at 27. 2
AFFIRMED

.

________________________________ CHARLES KREGER Justice Submitted on September 6, 2022 Opinion Delivered September 15, 2022 Before Golemon , C.J., Kreger and Johnson , JJ.

2 We note that if Appellant decides to pursue review by the Supreme Court of Texas, counsel may satisfy her obligations to Appellant “by fi l ing a petition for review that satisfies the standards for an Anders brief.” In re P.M ., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27

- 28 (Tex. 2 016)

.