In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27-28 (Tex. 2016) (order) (holding that Family Code Section 107.013 requires appointed counsel to represent client through all proceedings in the supreme court unless good cause other than the existence of a frivolous appeal is shown); In re D.T., No. 02-17-00061-CV, 2017 WL 2806323, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth June 29, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op.) (applying reasoning of P.M. to Family Code Section 51.101(a) regarding appeals from non-modification dispositions, which is similar to Section 107.013 and requires attorney to represent child until "the case is terminated" or new counsel is appointed or retained).
See In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27-28 (Tex. 2016); In re D.T., No. 02-17-00061-CV, 2017 WL 2806323, at *1-3 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth June 29, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op.). B. Grandfather's and Grandmother's Appeal
Finding no reversible error, we agree with counsel that this appeal is without merit. See In re D.T., No. 02-17-00061-CV, 2017 WL 2806323, at *1-3 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth June 29, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op.). Therefore, we affirm the trial court's transfer order.
As counsel knows, he has a continuing duty to represent T.R. until he has exhausted all appellate proceedings, including possibly filing a petition for review in the supreme court. See In re D.T., No. 02-17-00061-CV, 2017 WL 2806323, at *3 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth June 29, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op.). /s/ Elizabeth Kerr
See In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27-28 (Tex. 2016); In re D.T., No. 02-17-00061-CV, 2017 WL 2806323, at *1-3 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth June 29, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op.). /s/ Lee Gabriel
See In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27-28 (Tex. 2016); In re D.T., No. 02-17-00061-CV, 2017 WL 2806323, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth June 29, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op.). /s/ Elizabeth Kerr
, 520 S.W.3d 24 (Tex. 2016, order) a termination-of-parental-rights appeal, as at least one Texas appellate court has done. SeeIn re D.T. , No. 02-17-00061-CV, 2017 WL 2806323, 2017 Tex. App. LEXIS 5963 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth June 29, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op.). Although the substance of the brief appears adequate, the brief and the motion to withdraw with its accompanying correspondence do not provide the Court with an adequate basis to determine that counsel has complied with the necessary procedures when filing an Anders brief in an appeal of a juvenile proceeding.
We remind counsel of his continuing duty to represent Father through the exhaustion of proceedings, including possibly filing a petition for review in the supreme court. See In re D.T., No. 02-17-00061-CV, 2017 WL 2806323, at *3 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth June 29, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op.). /s/ Elizabeth Kerr
Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's judgment and remind Father's appointed counsel, who has not filed a motion to withdraw in this court, "of his continuing duty to represent [Father] through the exhaustion of proceedings, including possibly filing a petition for review in the supreme court." In re D.T., No. 02-17-00061-CV, 2017 WL 2806323, at *3 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth June 29, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op.); see also In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 (Tex. 2016).