Court of Appeals Tenth Appellate District of Texas 10-25-00335-CV

In the Interest of A.W. and K.W., Children

On appeal from the 474th District Court of McLennan County, Texas Judge Nikki Mundkowsky, presiding Trial Court Cause No. 2024-2144-6 JUSTICE HARRIS delivered the opinion of the Court.

MEMORANDUM OPINION The mother’s appointed counsel filed an Anders brief asserting that the appeal presents no issue of arguable merit. 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). The mother was advised that counsel had filed the brief pursuant to Anders and that she had the right to file a pro se response with this Court. The mother was also advised of her right to review the record prior to filing a response. 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 Sections 161.001(b)(1)(D), (N), and (O) 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

In the Interest of A.W. and K.W., Children Page 2 court's judgment.

If the mother desires to file a petition for review, her appellate counsel remains appointed in this case through any proceedings in the Texas Supreme Court unless otherwise relieved of these duties. See In the Interest of P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 (Tex. 2016).

LEE HARRIS Chief Justice OPINION DELIVERED and FILED: December 11, 2025 Before Chief Justice Johnson, Justice Smith, and Justice Harris Motion denied Affirmed CV06

In the Interest of A.W. and K.W., Children Page 3