IN THE INTEREST OF K.W., D.W. AND K.W., CHILDREN
the 77th District Court Limestone County, Texas Trial Court
Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Scoggins.
GRAY, CHIEF JUSTICE.
and Roger appeal from an order that terminated the
parent-child relationship between them and their children,
K.W., D.W., and K.W. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. §
161.001 (West 2014).
and Roger's appointed counsel has filed an
Anders brief 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 v. California 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 Kimberly and Roger that counsel
had filed the brief pursuant to Anders and that
Kimberly and Roger had the right to review the record and
file a pro se response on their own behalf. Counsel also
provided Kimberly and Roger with a copy of the record.
Kimberly and Roger filed a response with this Court; the
Department did not.
asserts in the Anders brief that counsel reviewed
the trial court's jurisdiction and the entire record for
any potentially meritorious issues, and determined there is
no non-frivolous issue to raise in this appeal. 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;
High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812-813 (Tex. Crim.
App. 1978); see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403,
406-408 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).
their response to counsel's Anders brief,
Kimberly and Roger assert that the visitation schedule was
not accommodating to their location and work schedules;
testimony regarding therapy was not consistent with what was
actually occurring; they stopped seeing one therapist because
they felt they were not being counseled but rather were being
interrogated; and since January of 2016, they have had a
stable and clean home for the children.
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 Stafford v. State,
813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); see also In
re M.A.R., No. 10-10-00237-CV, 2011 Tex.App. LEXIS 3596,
at *2 (Tex. App.-Waco May 11, 2011, no pet.) (mem. op.).
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).
carefully reviewed the entire record and the Anders
brief, as well as Kimberly's and Roger's response, we
have determined that the appeal is frivolous. See In re
D.D., 279 S.W.3d 849, 850 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2009, pet.
denied). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's order
that counsel did not file a motion to withdraw as has
historically been required in order to comply with the
procedures set forth in Anders and its Texas
progeny. However, the Texas Supreme Court has stated that the
lack of an arguable issue and the subsequent filing of a
motion to withdraw and an Anders brief in support
may not be considered "good cause" for purposes of
granting the Anders motion to withdraw pursuant to
the Texas Family Code. See In the Interest of P.M.,
No. 15-0171, 2016 Tex. LEXIS 236, *7-8 (Tex. Apr. 1, 2016)
("[A]n Anders motion to withdraw brought in the
court of appeals, in the absence of additional grounds for
withdrawal, may be premature."). Accordingly, we no
longer require a motion to withdraw when filing an
Anders brief in an appeal of an order terminating
parental rights. See In the Interest of G.P., 503
S.W.3d 531, 535-36 (Tex. App.-Waco 2016, pet. denied).
Consequently, if Kimberly and Roger desire 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 a criminal case where an attorney
has determined the appeal to be frivolous, the attorney must
file a motion to withdraw accompanied by an
"Anders brief" which assures the appellate
court that the motion to withdraw is
"well-founded." In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d
403, 407 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). There is no other option. In
contrast, the Texas Supreme Court has determined that a
frivolous appeal is not good cause to allow withdrawal of
counsel. In the Interest of P.M., No. 15-0171, 2016
Tex. LEXIS 236, at *8 (Tex. Apr. 1, 2016). Thus, in civil