Motion to withdraw denied and Order filed March 10, 2022.

In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals ____________ NO. 14-21-00538-CV ____________ IN THE INTEREST OF C.U.D., S.L.D., A/K/A S.D., J.P.J.D., K.K.J.D., A.E.D., II, CHILDREN

On Appeal from the 308th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2018-37155

ORDER Appellant A.E.D., the father of minors who are the subject of this appeal, is represented by court-appointed counsel on appeal, W. Leslie Shireman. On December 13, 2021, appellant’s appointed counsel filed a brief stating the appeal is frivolous, under the authority of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). See In re D.E.S., 135 S.W.3d 326, 329–30 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, no pet.) (applying Anders procedures to a parental termination case). On the same day, counsel filed a motion to withdraw as appellate counsel based on his Anders brief.

The Supreme Court of Texas has concluded that the right to counsel under Family Code § 107.013(a)(1) through the exhaustion of appeals under Family Code § 107.016(2)(B) encompasses all proceedings in the Supreme Court of Texas, including the filing of a petition for review. In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 (Tex. 2016) (per curiam). Once appointed by the trial court, counsel should be permitted to withdraw only for good cause and on appropriate terms and conditions. Id. Mere dissatisfaction of counsel or client with each other is not good cause. Id. Nor is counsel’s belief that the client has no grounds to seek further review from the court of appeals’ decision. Id. Counsel’s obligation to the client still may be satisfied by filing an appellate brief meeting the standards set in Anders v. California and its progeny. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d at 28. However, counsel’s motion to withdraw in this court, in the absence of additional grounds for withdrawal, may be premature. In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d at 27. If counsel for appellant has concluded there are no non-frivolous points to urge in a petition for review in the Supreme Court of Texas, then counsel may elect to file in that court a petition for review that satisfies the standards for an Anders brief. See id. (stating that “[i]n this Court, appointed counsel’s obligations can be satisfied by filing a petition for review that satisfies the standards for an Anders brief”).

Because the only grounds counsel has identified for withdrawal do not constitute good cause, we deny counsel’s motion to withdraw.

PER CURIAM Panel Consists of Justices Wise, Jewell, and Poissant.