Full Opinion

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-26-00284-CV IN THE INTEREST OF D.W. and A.W. From the 150th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2024-PA-01069 Honorable Raul Perales, Judge Presiding Opinion by: Adrian A. Spears II, Justice Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice Adrian A. Spears II, Justice Delivered and Filed: September 2, 2026 AFFIRMED Mother appeals the trial court’s order terminating her parental rights to her children, D.W. and A.W. 1 The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services filed the underlying suit, seeking termination of Mother’s parental rights to the children. After a bench trial, the trial court found by clear and convincing evidence that three statutory grounds supported termination of Mother’s parental rights and that termination of Mother’s parental rights was in her children’s best interests. Mother timely appealed the trial court’s order of termination. 1 To protect the identity of the minor children, 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). 04-26-00284-CV Mother’s court-appointed appellate attorney filed a brief and a motion to withdraw pursuant to 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) (applying Anders procedures in appeal from order terminating parental rights). Counsel’s brief contains a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrates that there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. In the brief, counsel concludes that this appeal is frivolous and without merit. In compliance with the procedure set out in Anders, counsel has shown that he sent a letter to appellant, which explained appellant’s right to review the record and file a pro se brief. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 320 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d at 27. In the letter to appellant, counsel stated that he had enclosed copies of the brief and motion to withdraw. See Kelly, 436 S.W.3d at 319. After granting appellant’s pro se motion to access the appellate record, this court set a deadline for appellant to file a pro se brief. On August 5, 2026, appellant filed an amended pro se brief. We have reviewed the record, counsel’s Anders brief, appellant’s amended pro se brief, and appellant’s supplemental letter brief. We agree with counsel that this appeal is without merit. Therefore, we affirm the trial court’s order terminating appellant’s parental rights. We deny counsel’s motion to withdraw because it does not assert any ground for withdrawal apart from counsel’s conclusion that the appeal is frivolous. See In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d at 27; In re A.M., 495 S.W.3d 573, 583 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2016, pet. denied). Counsel’s duty to his client extends through the exhaustion or waiver of all appeals, including the filing of a petition for review in the Texas Supreme Court. See TEX. FAM. CODE § 107.016; In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d at 27. After this court has rendered its decision, appointed counsel’s obligations to his client may be satisfied by filing a petition for review that satisfies the standards for an Anders brief. See In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d at 27-28 & n.14. Adrian A. Spears II, Justice -2-