IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-19-00167-CV
IN THE INTEREST OF O.S.S. AND L.L.S., CHILDREN
From the 52nd District Court
Coryell County, Texas
Trial Court No. DC-17-46965
MEMORANDUM OPINION
After Appellant’s parental rights to her children, O.S.S. and L.L.S., were
terminated following a bench trial,1 Appellant’s appointed appellate counsel filed a
notice of appeal.2 Appellant’s counsel has now filed an Anders brief, asserting that he
diligently reviewed the record and that, in his opinion, the appeal is frivolous. See Anders
v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967); In re E.L.Y., 69 S.W.3d 838,
841 (Tex. App.—Waco 2002, order) (applying Anders to termination appeal).
1 The trial court found by clear and convincing evidence that Appellant had violated Family Code
subsections 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), (N), and (O) and that termination was in the children’s best interest. See
TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 161.001(b).
2 The parental rights of the children’s father were also terminated, but he has not appealed.
Counsel’s brief meets the requirements of Anders; it presents a professional
evaluation demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to advance on appeal. See
In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 n.9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (“In Texas, an Anders brief
need not specifically advance ‘arguable’ points of error if counsel finds none, but it must
provide record references to the facts and procedural history and set out pertinent legal
authorities.”); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Appellant’s
counsel has carefully discussed why, under controlling authority, there is no reversible
error in the trial court’s order of termination. Counsel has informed us that he has: (1)
examined the record and found no arguable grounds to advance on appeal; (2) served a
copy of the brief and the appellate record on Appellant; and (3) informed Appellant of
her right to review the record and to file a pro se response.3 See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87
S.Ct. at 1400; Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); Stafford, 813
S.W.2d at 510 n.3; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978);
see also Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408-09. Appellant has not filed a pro se response and has
not raised any arguable issues.
Upon receiving an Anders brief, we must conduct a full examination of all the
proceedings to determine whether the case is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.
75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 349-50, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988). An appeal is “wholly frivolous” or
“without merit” when it “lacks any basis in law or fact.” McCoy v. Court of Appeals, 486
3 The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has held that “’the pro se response need not comply with the rules
of appellate procedure in order to be considered. Rather, the response should identify for the court those
issues which the indigent appellant believes the court should consider in deciding whether the case
presents any meritorious issues.’” Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409 n.23 (quoting Wilson v. State, 955 S.W.2d
693, 696-97 (Tex. App.—Waco 1997, order)).
In the Interest of O.S.S. and L.L.S., Children Page 2
U.S. 429, 438 n.10, 108 S.Ct. 1895, 1902 n.10, 100 L.Ed.2d 440 (1988). We have reviewed
the entire record and counsel’s brief and have found nothing that would arguably
support an appeal.4 See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827-28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005)
(“Due to the nature of Anders briefs, by indicating in the opinion that it considered the
issues raised in the briefs and reviewed the record for reversible error but found none,
the court of appeals met the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1.”);
Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 509.
Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s order of termination. We also remind
Appellant’s appointed appellate counsel that if Appellant, after consulting with counsel,
desires to file a petition for review, counsel is still under a duty to timely file with the
Texas Supreme Court “a petition for review that satisfies the standards for an Anders
brief.” In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27-28 (Tex. 2016) (per curiam); see In re G.P., 503 S.W.3d
531, 535 (Tex. App.—Waco 2016, pet. denied); see also TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 107.016.
REX D. DAVIS
Justice
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Davis, and
Justice Neill
Affirmed
Opinion delivered and filed November 6, 2019
[CV06]
4 We note that counsel reviewed the sufficiency of the evidence for ground E and determined it was
frivolous to attack that finding. We agree. See In re N.G., 577 S.W.3d 230 (Tex. 2019).
In the Interest of O.S.S. and L.L.S., Children Page 3