Opinion issued March 17, 2005
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
NO. 01-04-00445-CV
KESREE WILKERSON, Appellant
V.
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND
PROTECTIVE SERVICES, Appellee
On Appeal from the 314th District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 2003-03325J
MEMORANDUM OPINION
The trial court rendered a decree terminating the parental rights of appellant, Kesree Wilkerson, as to her child, R.D.D.S. and awarding sole managing conservatorship of her child, D.D.Q.P., to his father, Ira Purifoy, with no findings as to appellant’s rights or obligations to D.D.Q.P. Appellant stated on the record that she agreed with the trial court’s determination as to D.D.Q.P., but that she did not agree with the termination of her parental rights as to R.D.D.S. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
In April 2003, the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (TDFPS) filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of appellant. At a trial to the court in March 2004, the evidence established that both appellant and R.D.D.S. tested positive for cocaine at the birth of R.D.D.S. in April 2003, that appellant had been incarcerated for possession of a controlled substance since July 2003 and had three years remaining on her sentence, and that appellant had, in 1996 or 1997, been convicted of “delivery” and was sentenced to 18 months in prison. The evidence also established that appellant had no family members who were able and willing to care for R.D.D.S. In addition, appellant was H.I.V. positive, but had not taken any antiretroviral medications during her pregnancy, further endangering her child. In June 2003, approximately one month before she was arrested, appellant had received a family service plan from TDFPS that contained a warning that if she was unable or unwilling to provide a safe and stable environment for her children, her parental rights could be restricted or terminated.
DISCUSSION
Appellant’s appointed counsel has filed an Anders brief, informing this Court that he has been unable to find any reversible error in the record and has found no grounds that arguably support any appeal on appellant’s behalf. We have previously applied the procedures set forth in Anders to an appeal of the termination of parental rights. See In re K.D., 127 S.W.3d 66 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, no pet.); In re L.G.V., 2004 W.L. 253312 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, no pet.). The brief filed in this appeal meets the requirements of Anders by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating that there are no arguable grounds for appeal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967). Counsel states in the brief that he has served appellant with a copy of the brief and has informed appellant that she has the right to petition for a review of the record and file a pro se brief. More than 120 days have passed, and appellant has not filed a pro se brief.
We have reviewed the entire record and agree that there is no arguable basis for an appeal. We affirm the trial court’s decree.
Counsel has also filed a motion to withdraw as counsel for appellant. We grant the motion to withdraw. However, counsel still has a duty to inform appellant of the result of this appeal and also to inform her that she may, on her own, pursue a petition for review in the Texas Supreme Court. See In re K.D., 127 S.W.2d at 68 n.3, (citing Ex parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997)).
Sam Nuchia
Justice
Panel consists of Justices Nuchia, Jennings, and Alcala.