Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-22-00499-CV In the INTEREST OF J.A.M., J.R.M., J.P.M., and J.A.M., Children From the 365th Judicial District Court, Maverick County, Texas Trial Court No. 21-03-39707-MCVAJA Honorable Amado J. Abascal III, Judge Presiding Opinion by: Irene Rios, Justice Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice Irene Rios, Justice Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice Delivered and Filed: December 28, 2022 AFFIRMED Mother A.G. 1 appeals the trial court’s order, wherein Mother’s sister, Y.F., was appointed sole managing conservator of Mother’s children, J.A.M., J.R.M., J.P.M., and J.A.M., and Mother was appointed possessory conservator of her children with court-ordered possession. Mother’s parental rights were not terminated.

Mother’s court-appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw and a brief representing that she conducted a professional evaluation of the record and determined there are no arguable grounds to be raised on appeal. The brief satisfies the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); see In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 n.10 (Tex. 2016) (per curiam) (recognizing Anders

To protect the identity of the minor children, we refer to the parties by fictitious names, initials, or aliases. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 109.002(d); TEX. R. APP. P. 9.8(b)(2).

04-22-00499-CV

procedure applies in parental termination appeals). Counsel also certified that she sent a copy of the brief and the motion to withdraw to Mother, informed her of the right to review the record and file her own brief, and provided Mother with a form motion to request access to the record. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re A.L.H., No. 04-18-00153- CV, 2018 WL 3861695, at *2 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Aug. 15, 2018, no pet.). Mother submitted a pro se brief.

After reviewing the record, counsel’s brief, and Mother’s pro se brief, we agree that there are no meritorious issues to be raised and the appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s order. We deny counsel’s motion to withdraw because she does not assert any ground for withdrawal other than her conclusion that the appeal is frivolous. In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d at 27–28 (holding counsel’s obligations in parental termination cases extend through the exhaustion or waiver of all appeals, including the filing of a petition for review in the Texas Supreme Court).

Irene Rios, Justice

-2-