Full Opinion

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-26-00446-CV M.B., Appellant v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee FROM THE 146TH DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY NO. 25DFAM353651, THE HONORABLE CHRISTOPHER L. CORNISH, JUDGE PRESIDING MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant M.B. (Father) appeals the district court’s decree of termination that terminated his parental rights to his children, Marcus and Susan. 1 See Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001. The case was tried to the court, which found by clear and convincing evidence that statutory grounds existed for terminating Father’s parental rights and that termination of those rights was in the children’s best interest. See id. § 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), (N), (2). Father’s court-appointed attorney has filed a motion to withdraw supported by an Anders brief, concluding that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967); In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 & n.10 (Tex. 2016) (per curiam) (approving use of Anders procedure in appeals from terminations of parental rights). The brief 1 For privacy, we refer to the children by aliases and to their parent as “Father.” See Tex. R. App. P. 9.8; Tex. Fam. Code § 109.002(d). meets the requirements of Anders by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced on appeal. See 386 U.S. at 744; Taylor v. Texas Dep’t of Protective & Regul. Servs., 160 S.W.3d 641, 646–47 (Tex. App.— Austin 2005, pet. denied). Father’s counsel has certified to this Court that he has provided Father with a copy of the Anders brief and the motion to withdraw and advised him of his rights to examine the appellate record and to file a pro se brief. To date, Father has not filed a pro se brief. The Department of Family and Protective Services has filed a response to the Anders brief, stating that it will not file a brief but requests the opportunity to file a brief addressing any pro se response. Upon receiving an Anders brief, we must conduct a full examination of the record to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988); Taylor, 160 S.W.3d at 647. We have conducted an independent review of the entire record, including the Anders brief submitted on Father’s behalf. We have found nothing in the record that might arguably support an appeal, and we agree the appeal is frivolous and without merit. We have specifically reviewed the district court’s findings as to Father under subsections (D) and (E) of Family Code section 161.001(b)(1), and we have found no nonfrivolous issues that could be raised on appeal with respect to those findings. See In re N.G., 577 S.W.3d 230, 237 (Tex. 2019) (per curiam). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s final order terminating Father’s parental rights. However, the Supreme Court of Texas has held that the right to counsel in suits seeking the termination of parental rights extends to “all proceedings in th[e Supreme Court of Texas], including the filing of a petition for review.” In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 (Tex. 2016) (per curiam). Accordingly, counsel’s obligation to Father has not yet been discharged. See id. 2 If after consulting with counsel Father desires to file a petition for review, his counsel should timely file with the Supreme Court “a petition for review that satisfies the standards for an Anders brief.” See id. at 27–28. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is denied. __________________________________________ Darlene Byrne, Chief Justice Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Theofanis and Crump Affirmed Filed: August 12, 2026 3