TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-24-00273-CV

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

FROM THE 340TH DISTRICT COURT OF TOM GREEN COUNTY NO. C220030CPS, THE HONORABLE ELIZABETH WATKINS, JUDGE PRESIDING

MEMORANDUM OPINION

M.V. (“Mother”) appeals from a final judgment appointing her as possessory conservator of her son (“Child”) and Child’s grandmother as managing conservator. 1 See Tex. Fam. Code § 153.131 (requiring courts to appoint child’s parents as joint managing conservators unless appointment “would significantly impair the child’s physical health or emotional development”).

On appeal, Mother’s court-appointed attorney has filed a brief concluding that her 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 termination of parental

We refer to appellant by her initials or as Mother and her child as Child. See Tex. Fam.

Code § 109.002(d); Tex. R. App. P. 9.8. The district court appointed Child’s father as possessory conservator in the same order, but he has not appealed. 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. Mother’s attorney has certified to this Court that he provided a copy of the Anders brief to Mother and informed her of her right to examine the appellate record and to file a pro se brief. To date, Mother has not filed a pro se brief.

Upon receiving an Anders brief, we must conduct a full examination 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 Mother’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 district court’s judgment. 2

__________________________________________ Rosa Lopez Theofanis, Justice Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Smith and Theofanis Affirmed Filed: August 15, 2024

2 We deny Mother’s counsel’s motion to withdraw as attorney of record. See In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 (Tex. 2016) (per curiam). If Mother, after consulting with counsel, desires to file a petition for review, her counsel should timely file with the Texas Supreme Court “a petition for review that satisfies the standards for an Anders brief.” See id. at 27–28.