IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS No. 10-24-00240-CV IN THE INTEREST OF A.O., A CHILD

From the 77th District Court Limestone County, Texas Trial Court No. CPS-416-A

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (“the Department”) filed a petition seeking to terminate Mother’s parental rights to A.O. Following a bench trial, the trial court terminated Mother’s parental rights under Texas Family Code Sections 161.001(b)(1)(D) and (b)(1)(E) and found that termination was in the best interest of A.O.1 See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. §§ 161.001(b)(1)(D), (b)(1)(E), (b)(2). Mother appealed.

Mother’s attorney has now filed an Anders brief asserting that she diligently reviewed the record and that she believes the appeal to be frivolous. See generally Anders

1 The Department also sought to terminate the parental rights of A.O.’s unknown father. The unknown father has not appealed the trial court’s termination of his parental rights to A.O. v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967); In re A.S., 653 S.W.3d 298 (Tex. App.—Waco 2022, no pet.). We affirm.

Counsel’s brief meets the requirements of Anders by presenting a professional evaluation demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to advance on appeal. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Counsel has provided us with the appropriate facts of the case and its procedural history, and has discussed why, under controlling authority, there is no reversible error in the trial court’s termination order. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 n.9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Further, counsel informed us that she has examined the record and found no arguable grounds to advance on appeal, served Mother with a copy of the Anders brief, provided a copy of the appellate record to Mother, and informed Mother of her right to file a response to the Anders brief.

See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re A.S., 653 S.W.3d at 299-300. By letter, we informed Mother of her right to review the appellate record and to file a response to the Anders brief filed by her appellate counsel.

Mother did not file a pro se response.

Upon receiving an Anders brief, we must conduct a full examination of the proceedings to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988). Arguments are frivolous when they “cannot conceivably persuade the court.” McCoy v. Court of Appeals, 486 U.S. 429, 436 (1988). We have reviewed the entire record and counsel’s brief, and we have found nothing that would arguably support an

In the Interest of A.O., a Child Page 2 appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We affirm the judgment of the trial court terminating Mother’s parental rights to A.O.

Counsel’s duty to her client extends through the exhaustion or waiver of “all appeals.” TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 107.016(2)(B). Consequently, if Mother, after consulting with counsel, desires to file a petition for review to the Texas Supreme Court, counsel’s obligations can be satisfied by filing “a petition for review that satisfies the standards for an Anders brief.” See In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27-28 (Tex. 2016).

Conclusion Having found no meritorious issues presented in this appeal, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

STEVE SMITH Justice Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Johnson, and Justice Smith Affirmed Opinion delivered and filed December 30, 2024 [CV06]

In the Interest of A.O., a Child Page 3