Mother's court-appointed attorney has now filed a motion to withdraw and an Anders brief, stating his professional opinion that the appeal is without merit and that there are no arguable grounds for reversal on appeal. See generally Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); See In re E.L.W., No. 01-17-00546-CV, 2017 Tex.App. LEXIS 11014, 2017 WL 5712545, at *1-4 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] Nov. 28, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op.) (applying Anders procedures to an appeal from a final order in which the trial court did not terminate parental rights but rendered a final order regarding conservatorship)

; see, e.g., In re E.L.W., No. 01-17-00546-CV, 2017 WL 5712545, at *1 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] Nov. 28, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op.)

See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). The procedures set for in Anders are applicable to an appeal from a trial court's order in a suit brought by the Department of Family and Protective Services for the protection of a child, for conservatorship, or for termination of parental rights. See In re M.R., No. 01-20-00845-CV, 2021 WL 2425245, at *1-2 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist] June 15, 2021, no pet.) (mem. op.); see, e.g., In re E.L.W., No. 01-17-00546-CV, 2017 WL 5712545, at *1 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist] Nov. 28, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op.)

Anders procedures are appropriate in an appeal from a trial court's final order in a suit brought by DFPS for the protection of a child, for conservatorship, or for parental-rights termination. See In re K.D., 127 S.W.3d 66, 67 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, no pet.); see also In re E.L.W., No. 01-17-00546-CV, 2017 WL 5712545, at *1 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] Nov. 28, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op.)

In re K.D., 127 S.W.3d 66, 67 (Tex. App.- Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, no pet.); see also In re E.L.W., No. 01-17-00546-CV, 2017 WL 5712545, at *1 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] Nov. 28, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op.)

Anders procedures are appropriate in an appeal from a trial court's final order in a suit brought by DFPS for the protection of a child, for conservatorship, or for parental-rights termination. In re K.D., 127 S.W.3d 66, 67 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, no pet.); see also In re E.L.W., No. 01-17-00546-CV, 2017 WL 5712545, at *1 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] Nov. 28, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op.) (applying Anders to final order in which trial court did not terminate parents' parental rights, but appointed paternal grandparents as managing conservators and parents' as possessory conservators); In re J.E.L., No. 04-15-00634-CV, 2016 WL 1359354, at *1 (Tex. App.-San Antonio Apr. 6, 2016, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (applying Anders to order in which trial court did not terminate mother's parental rights but appointed maternal grandmother as children's managing conservator and children's parents as possessory conservators). An attorney has an ethical obligation to refuse to prosecute a frivolous appeal.