C. H. v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-25-00531-CV

C. H., Appellant

v.

Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee

FROM THE 345TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY
NO. D-1-FM-24-004814, THE HONORABLE SHERINE THOMAS, JUDGE PRESIDING

MEMORANDUM OPINION

C.H. (“Mother”) appeals from the trial court’s final decree of termination following

a bench trial. 1 See Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001. The trial court found by clear and convincing

evidence that statutory grounds for terminating her parental rights existed and that termination was

in her child’s best interest. See id. § 161.001(b)(1)(K) (relinquishment of parental rights), (2) (best

interest of child).

On appeal, Mother’s court-appointed attorney has filed a brief concluding that her

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) (explaining that counsel’s obligation to

client in parental-rights-termination case may be satisfied by filing Anders brief). The brief meets

1We refer to appellant by her initials or as Mother. See Tex. Fam. Code § 109.002(d);
Tex. R. App. P. 9.8.
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. Mother’s

attorney has certified to this Court that he provided a copy of the Anders brief to Mother and

informed her of her right to examine the appellate record and to file a pro se brief. To date, Mother

has not filed a pro se brief.

Upon receiving an Anders brief, we must conduct a full examination of the

proceedings to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80

(1988). We have reviewed the entire record, including the Anders brief submitted on Mother’s

behalf, and have found nothing that would arguably support an appeal. We agree that the appeal

is frivolous and without merit. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s final decree of termination. 2

__________________________________________
Rosa Lopez Theofanis, Justice

Before Justices Triana, Kelly, and Theofanis

Affirmed

Filed: September 19, 2025

2 We deny Mother’s counsel’s motion to withdraw as attorney of record. See In re P.M.,
520 S.W.3d 24, 27 (Tex. 2016) (per curiam). If Mother, after consulting with counsel, desires to
file a petition for review, her counsel should timely file with the Texas Supreme Court “a petition
for review that satisfies the standards for an Anders brief.” See id. at 27–28.
2