IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS No. 10-23-00024-CV IN THE INTEREST OF W.L.P., A CHILD

From the County Court at Law Ellis County, Texas Trial Court No. 107445-CCL

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The mother of W.L.P. appealed from a judgment that terminated the parent-child relationship between her and her child. See, generally, TEX. FAM. CODE § 161.001. The mother’s appointed counsel has filed an Anders brief asserting that the appeal presents no issue of arguable merit and a motion to withdraw as counsel. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967). The procedures set forth in Anders v. California are generally applicable to appeals of judgments that terminate parental rights.

In re E.L.Y., 69 S.W.3d 838, 841 (Tex. App.—Waco 2002, order). Counsel advised the mother that counsel had filed the brief pursuant to Anders and that the mother had the right to review the record and file a pro se response on her own behalf. Counsel also stated that she provided the mother with the clerk’s and reporter’s records in this proceeding. The mother did not file a pro se response with this Court.

Counsel included a recitation of the procedural history and relevant facts in the Anders brief and asserted that counsel had reviewed the record for any potentially meritorious issues, including jurisdictional issues, and determined there are no non- frivolous issues to raise in this appeal. Counsel's brief discusses the sufficiency of the evidence as to each of the predicate acts upon which the termination was granted, including Section 161.001(b)(1)(D) and (E), as well as best interest. Counsel's brief includes a professional evaluation of the record, and we conclude that counsel performed the duties required of appointed counsel. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406-408 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).

Upon the filing of an Anders brief, as the reviewing appellate court, it is our duty to independently examine the record to decide whether counsel is correct in determining that an appeal is frivolous. See In re G.P., 503 S.W.3d 531, 536 (Tex. App.—Waco 2016, pet. denied). Arguments are frivolous when they "cannot conceivably persuade the court." McCoy v. Court of Appeals, 486 U.S. 429, 436, 108 S. Ct. 1895, 100 L. Ed. 2d 440 (1988).

Having carefully reviewed the entire record and the Anders brief, we have determined that the appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's judgment.

In the Interest of W.L.P., a child Page 2 CONCLUSION Having found no meritorious issues presented in this appeal, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

TOM GRAY Chief Justice Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Johnson, and Justice Smith Affirmed Opinion delivered and filed May 31, 2023 [CV06]

In the Interest of W.L.P., a child Page 3