TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-16-00302-CV

M. W., Appellant v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY, 146TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 270,956-B, HONORABLE JACK WELDON JONES, JUDGE PRESIDING

MEMORANDUM OPINION

M.W. appeals from the trial court’s decree terminating his parental rights to his three children, H.W., L.W., and M.W., Jr.1 See Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001. Following a de novo hearing, the trial court entered the de-novo decree of termination, finding by clear and convincing evidence that statutory grounds for terminating M.W.’s parental rights existed and that termination was in the children’s best interest. See id. § 161.001(1)(D), (E), (O), (2).

On appeal, M.W.’s court-appointed attorney has filed a motion to withdraw and a brief concluding that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967); 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 appeal from

We refer to the father and his children by their initials only. See Tex. Fam. Code § 109.002(d); Tex. R. App. P. 9.8. termination of parental rights). The brief meets the requirements of Anders by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced on appeal. See 386 U.S. at 744; Taylor, 160 S.W.3d at 646–47. Appellant’s counsel has certified to this Court that he provided M.W. with a copy of the Anders brief and motion to withdraw as counsel and informed him of his right to examine the appellate record and to file a pro se brief.

To date, M.W. has not filed a pro se brief.

The Department of Family and Protective Services has filed a brief in response to the Anders brief, agreeing with the assessment of appellant’s counsel that there are no meritorious grounds to be advanced on appeal.

Upon receiving an Anders brief, we must conduct a full examination of all of the proceedings to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988). We have reviewed the entire record, including the Anders brief submitted on M.W.’s behalf, and have found nothing that would arguably support an appeal. We agree that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s decree terminating M.W.’s parental rights. We deny counsel’s motion to withdraw.2

See In re P.M., No. 15-0171, ___ S.W.3d ___, 2016 Tex. LEXIS 236 (Tex. Apr. 1, 2016) (per curiam). In In re P.M., the Texas Supreme Court held that the right to counsel in suits seeking the termination of parental rights extends to “all proceedings in [the Texas Supreme Court], including the filing of a petition for review.” Id. at *7–8. Accordingly, counsel’s obligation to M.W. has not yet been discharged. See id. If M.W., after consulting with counsel, desires to file a petition for review, counsel should timely file with the Texas Supreme Court “a petition for review that satisfies the standards for an Anders brief.” See id. _____________________________________________ Melissa Goodwin, Justice Before Chief Justice Rose, Justices Goodwin and Bourland Affirmed Filed: August 10, 2016