Court of Appeals of Texas, Seventh District, Amarillo
Appeal from the 72nd District Court Crosby County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2016-7870, Honorable Kara L. Darnell,
QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ.
T. CAMPBELL, JUSTICE
B.M.,  the alleged father of G.L.R., appeals the
trial court's order terminating his right to the
child. Appellee is the Texas Department of Family
and Protective Services. B.M.'s court-appointed appellate
counsel has filed an Anders brief concluding the
appeal is frivolous. We will affirm the trial court's
brief, counsel states she diligently searched the record and
researched the applicable law, and in her professional
opinion the appeal is frivolous because the record shows no
reversible error. Porter v. Tex. Dep't of Protective
& Regulatory Servs., 105 S.W.3d 52, 56 (Tex.
App.-Corpus Christi 2003, no pet.) ("[W]hen appointed
counsel represents an indigent client in a
parental-termination appeal and concludes that there are no
non-frivolous issues for appeal, counsel may file an
Anders-type brief"); In re L.J., No.
07-14-00319-CV, 2015 Tex.App. LEXIS 427, at *3 (Tex.
App.-Amarillo Jan. 15, 2015, no pet.) (mem. op.) (noting
same). The brief contains an analysis of potential issues
with an explanation why counsel believes each is meritless.
Counsel has demonstrated she has complied with the
requirements of Anders by providing a copy of the
brief and appellate record to B.M. and notifying him of his
right to file a pro se response should he desire.
Id. See also Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313
(Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re L.V., No.
07-15-00315-CV, 2015 Tex.App. LEXIS 11607 (Tex. App.-Amarillo
Nov. 9, 2015, per curiam order). The Department filed a short
response to counsel's Anders brief. It does not
express disagreement with the analysis counsel presents in
her Anders brief. B.M. filed a pro se response to
the Anders brief, in which he discusses the changes
in his life since trial of the case. He attaches documents
indicating third parties recognize his current stability and
responsibility. While the law does not permit an appellate
court, reviewing a final judgment, to set aside the trial
court's judgment of termination based on a party's
post-judgment progress, we note that B.M.'s recent
improvements are commendable and to be encouraged.
to our obligations when appointed counsel files an
Anders brief, we have reviewed the appellate record
brought forward. See In re P.M., No. 15-0171, 2016
Tex. LEXIS 236, at *8 n.10 (Tex. Apr. 1, 2016) (per curiam)
(application of Anders procedures in parental-rights
termination cases) (citing In re D.A.S., 973 S.W.2d
296, 297 (Tex. 1998)); In re A.W.T., 61 S.W.3d 87,
88-89 (Tex. App.-Amarillo 2001, no pet.) (per curiam)
(termination case); see also In re Schulman, 252
S.W.3d at 407; Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503,
510 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); High v. State, 573
S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). After reviewing the
record, the Anders brief, and B.M.'s response we
agree with counsel there are no plausible grounds for
therefore affirm the trial court's judgment terminating
B.M.'s rights as an alleged father.
 To protect the privacy of the child
and parent, we refer to each by their initials. Tex. Fam.
Code Ann. § 109.002(d) (West 2014); Tex.R.App.P.
 See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN.
§ 161.002(b) (West Supp. 2016). The parental rights of
the child's mother were terminated in the same trial
court proceeding, based on her execution of an affidavit of
relinquishment. She has not appealed the judgment of
termination. The record shows G.L.R. was removed from his
mother's care in the hospital on his birth because of
methamphetamine in his system.
 Anders v. California, 386
U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).
 Counsel did not file a motion to
withdraw from her representation of B.M. We have disapproved
of this procedure. See In re X.H., No.
07-16-00410-CV, 2017 Tex.App. LEXIS 1011, at *3 n.4 (Tex.
App.-Amarillo Feb. 6, 2017, per curiam order). Because we
agree with counsel that the record presents no arguable
ground for reversal, and as counsel's brief points to no
other ground authorizing withdrawal, we will not require her
now to file a motion to withdraw. See In re P.M.,
2016 Tex. LEXIS 236, at *8 ("[A]n Anders motion
to withdraw brought in the court of appeals, in the absence
of additional grounds for withdrawal, may be
premature"). Rather, counsel is ...