IN THE INTEREST OF AND MINOR CHILDREN v. << (2017)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The Department of Family and Protective Services filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of Mother and Father to their children, P.H. and T.H. At the time, the children were in Mother's possession and Father lived out of state. Both were given service plans.

One year later, the parties entered a Rule 11 agreement in which they agreed to a dispositive placement hearing based on Mother's motion for further orders and placement. The parties agreed that if the trial court granted Mother's motion, Mother would be named Permanent Managing Conservator of the children and Father would be named Permanent Possessory Conservator. If the court denied Mother's motion, Father would be named Permanent Managing Conservator and Mother would be named Permanent Possessory Conservator.

A placement hearing was held. After hearing all the evidence, the trial court denied Mother's motion. The Department then moved to nonsuit its cause. In the decree, the court found it was in the best interest of the children to follow the Rule 11 agreement concerning placement of the children, named Father as Permanent Managing Conservator and named Mother as Permanent Possessory Conservator, and dismissed the Department as a party to the cause.

Mother filed a notice of appeal. Her court-appointed counsel has filed an Anders brief on her behalf, concluding that after a diligent review of the record, her appeal is frivolous and without merit. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738; In re D.D., 279 S.W.3d 849 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2009, pet. denied).

In reviewing an Anders brief, our duty is to determine whether there are any arguable grounds for reversal and, if there are, to remand the case to the trial court for the appointment of new counsel. Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); In re D.D., 279 S.W.3d at 850. The Anders brief filed by Mother's appellate counsel presents a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for reversal. This Court sent Mother a copy of the brief and notified her of her right to review the appellate record and file a pro se brief. Mother did not respond. We have reviewed the entire record and the brief. The record does not reflect any arguable grounds for reversal, and we conclude Mother's appeal is frivolous and without merit. To the extent counsel seeks to withdraw from the case, we deny his request. See In re P.M., No. 15-0171, 2016 WL 1274748, at *3–4 (Tex. Apr. 1, 2016) (per curiam).

We affirm the trial court's judgment.

MOLLY FRANCIS JUSTICE