in the Interest of J.W. and L.W., Children

Opinion

IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-22-00299-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF J.W. AND L.W., CHILDREN

From the 272nd District Court Brazos County, Texas

Trial Court No. 21-000066-CV-272

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Elizabeth appeals from an order that terminated the parent-child relationship between her and her children, J.W. and L.W. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. §§ 161.001, 161.003. Elizabeth's appointed counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California asserting that the appeal presents no issues of arguable merit. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967). The procedures set forth in Anders are applicable to appeals of orders terminating parental rights. In re E.L.Y., 69 S.W.3d 838, 841 (Tex. App.—Waco 2002, order). Counsel advised Elizabeth that counsel had filed the brief pursuant to Anders and that Elizabeth had the right to review the record and file a pro se response on her own behalf. Counsel also informed Elizabeth that she could request access to the record by contacting the Court. Elizabeth did not request the record or file a response with this Court.

Counsel included a detailed recitation of the facts in the Anders brief and asserted that counsel reviewed the record for any potentially meritorious issues and determined there is no non-frivolous issue to raise in this appeal. Counsel's brief discusses the sufficiency of the evidence relating to Section 161.001(b)(1)(D) and (E) 1 and Section 161.003 as well as the best interest of the children. Counsel's brief evidences a professional evaluation of the record, and we conclude that counsel performed the duties required of appointed counsel. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406-408 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).

Upon the filing of the Anders brief, as the reviewing appellate court, it is our duty to independently examine the record to decide whether counsel is correct in determining that an appeal is frivolous. See In the Interest of G.P., 503 S.W.3d 531, 536 (Tex. App.— Waco 2016, pet. denied). Arguments are frivolous when they "cannot conceivably persuade the court." McCoy v. Court of Appeals, 486 U.S. 429, 436, 108 S. Ct. 1895, 100 L. Ed. 2d 440 (1988).

Having carefully reviewed the entire record and the Anders brief, we agree with counsel that the appeal is frivolous. See In re D.D., 279 S.W.3d 849, 850 (Tex. App.—Dallas

1 An Anders brief must include a review of Section 161.001(b)(1)(D) or (E) if the termination was granted on either or both of those subsections pursuant to In re N.G., 577 S.W.3d 230, 235-36 (Tex. 2019).

In the Interest of J.W. and L.W., Children Page 2 2009, pet. denied). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's order of termination. CONCLUSION Having found no meritorious issues presented in this appeal, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

TOM GRAY

Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Johnson, and Justice Smith Affirmed Opinion delivered and filed November 30, 2022 CV06

In the Interest of J.W. and L.W., Children Page 3