IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS No. 10-24-00239-CV IN THE INTEREST OF I.E., A CHILD

From the County Court at Law Hill County, Texas Trial Court No. CV210-23CCL

MEMORANDUM OPINION After Appellant’s parental rights to her child, I.E., were terminated following a bench trial, 1 Appellant filed a notice of appeal. 2 Appellant’s counsel has now filed an Anders brief, asserting that she diligently reviewed the record and that, in her opinion, the appeal is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967); In re E.L.Y., 69 S.W.3d 838, 841 (Tex. App.—Waco 2002, order) (per curiam) (applying Anders to termination appeal).

Counsel’s brief meets the requirements of Anders; it presents a professional evaluation demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to advance on appeal. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 n.9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (“In Texas, an Anders brief need not specifically advance ‘arguable’ points of error if counsel finds none, but it must provide record references to the facts and procedural history and set out pertinent legal authorities.”); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Appellant’s counsel has carefully discussed why, under controlling authority, there is no reversible error in the trial court’s order of termination. Counsel has informed us that she has: (1) examined the record and found no arguable grounds to advance on appeal and (2) served a copy of the brief and the appellate record on Appellant. By letter, we informed Appellant of her right to review the record and to file a pro se response. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400; Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 510 n.3; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978); see also Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408–09. Appellant filed a pro se response.

Upon receiving an Anders brief, we must conduct a full examination of all the proceedings to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 349–50, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988). An appeal is “wholly frivolous” or “without merit” when it “lacks any basis in law or fact.” McCoy v. Court of Appeals, 486 U.S. 429, 438 n.10, 108 S.Ct. 1895, 1902 n.10, 100 L.Ed.2d 440 (1988). We have reviewed the entire record, counsel’s brief, and Appellant’s pro se response and have found nothing

In the Interest of I.E., a Child Page 2 that would arguably support an appeal. 3 See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (“Due to the nature of Anders briefs, by indicating in the opinion that it considered the issues raised in the briefs and reviewed the record for reversible error but found none, the court of appeals met the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1.”); Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 509.

Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s order of termination. We also remind Appellant’s appointed appellate counsel that if Appellant, after consulting with counsel, desires to file a petition for review, counsel is still under a duty to timely file with the Texas Supreme Court “a petition for review that satisfies the standards for an Anders brief.” In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27–28 (Tex. 2016) (per curiam); see In re G.P., 503 S.W.3d 531, 535 (Tex. App.—Waco 2016, pet. denied); see also TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 107.016.

MATT JOHNSON Chief Justice

She has never been able to obtain housing on her own, and during the pendency of this case, she lived in a homeless shelter. At one point during the pendency of this case, after being arrested for criminal trespassing, Appellant completed a psychological evaluation through MHMR as a condition of her bond.

Appellant then reported to her courtesy worker that she “was recommended medication management” but that she refused. Additionally, Appellant did not complete her court-ordered service plan, and her visits with I.E. had to be suspended because of her mental state.

In the Interest of I.E., a Child Page 3 Before Chief Justice Johnson, Justice Smith, and Justice Rose 4 Affirmed Opinion delivered and filed January 16, 2025 [CV06]

The Honorable Jeff Rose, Senior Chief Justice (Retired) of the Third Court of Appeals, sitting by assignment of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Texas. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. §§ 74.003, 75.002, 75.003.

In the Interest of I.E., a Child Page 4