Opinion
04-22-00512-CV
01-11-2023
IN THE INTEREST OF M.S.M., K.C.M., and C.C.M.
From the 198th Judicial District Court, Bandera County, Texas Trial Court No. CVPC-21-0000251 Honorable Dennis Powell, Judge Presiding
Sitting: Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Irene Rios, Justice Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice
MEMORANDUM OPINION
LIZA A. RODRIGUEZ, JUSTICE
Mother and Father appeal the trial court's order terminating their parental rights to their children. Their court-appointed attorneys have each filed a motion to withdraw and a brief representing that they have conducted a professional evaluation of the record and have determined there are no arguable grounds to be raised on appeal. The briefs satisfy the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). See In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 n.10 (Tex. 2016) (per curiam) (recognizing Anders procedure applies in parental termination appeals). Both court-appointed attorneys have also certified that they sent a copy of their briefs and motions to withdraw to Mother and Father, respectively, and informed Mother and Father of their right to review the record and file their own brief. Both court-appointed attorneys also provided Mother and Father, respectively, with a form motion to request access to the record. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re A.L.H., No. 04-18-00153-CV, 2018 WL 3861695, at *2 (Tex. App.-San Antonio Aug. 15, 2018, no pet.). Neither Mother nor Father have filed a pro se brief.
To protect the identity of the minor child, we refer to the parties by fictitious names, initials, or aliases. See Tex. Fam. Code § 109.002(d); Tex.R.App.P. 9.8(b)(2).
After reviewing the record and the briefs filed by counsel, we agree that there are no meritorious issues to be raised and the appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's order terminating the parental rights of Mother and Father. We deny counsels' respective motions to withdraw because they do not assert any ground for withdrawal other than the conclusion that the appeal is frivolous. See In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d at 27-28 (explaining that appointed counsel's duty to a client extends through exhaustion or waiver of all appeals, including the filing of a petition for review in the Texas Supreme Court).