Opinion
No. 03-06-00340-CV
Filed: January 15, 2007.
Appeal from the District Court of Tom Green County, 119th Judicial District, No. B-04-0158-CPS, Honorable Jay K. Weatherby, Judge Presiding.
Before Chief Justice LAW, Justices PURYEAR and HENSON.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This is an accelerated appeal from an order terminating the parental rights of Teresa Nell Grothe to her minor child, S.R.G. Grothe's attorney filed an Anders brief informing this Court that she has performed a "diligent review of the record and applicable authorities" and can find no arguable grounds to be advanced on appeal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). The procedures set forth in Anders are applicable to an appeal of the termination of parental rights when an appointed attorney concludes that there are no nonfrivolous issues to assert on appeal. See Taylor v. Texas Dep't of Protective Regulatory Servs., 160 S.W.3d 641, 646-47 (Tex.App.-Austin 2005, pet. denied); In re K.D., 127 S.W.3d 66, 67 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, no pet.); Porter v. Texas Dep't of Protective Regulatory Servs., 105 S.W.3d 52, 56 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2003, no pet.); In re K.M., 98 S.W.3d 774, 777 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2003, no pet.).
The brief filed by Grothe's attorney meets the requirements of Anders by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating that there are no arguable grounds for appeal. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. The record reflects that Grothe's attorney has served a copy of the Anders brief on Grothe and has informed Grothe of her right to file a pro se brief. More than four months have passed, and Grothe has not filed a pro se brief.
Upon receiving an Anders brief, we must conduct a full examination of all the proceedings to determine whether the case is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988). We have reviewed the entire record and the Anders brief submitted on Grothe's behalf, and we have found nothing that would arguably support an appeal. We agree that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's order terminating Grothe's parental rights to S.R.G.
In accordance with Anders, Grothe's attorney has asked permission to withdraw as counsel for Grothe. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. We grant the motion to withdraw. We also order Grothe's attorney to notify Grothe of the disposition of this appeal and the availability of discretionary review. See In re K.D., 127 S.W.3d at 68 n. 3.
Affirmed.