the 74th District Court McLennan County, Texas Trial Court
Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Neill
Appellant's parental rights to her child, G.L., were
terminated following a bench trial,  Appellant's appointed
appellate counsel filed a notice of appeal.Appellant's
counsel has now filed an Anders brief. Counsel
asserts that he has diligently reviewed the record and that,
in his opinion, the appeal is frivolous. See Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493
(1967); In re E.L.Y., 69 S.W.3d 838, 841 (Tex.
App.-Waco 2002, order) (per curiam) (applying Anders
to termination appeal).
Counsel's brief meets the requirements of
Anders; it presents a professional evaluation
demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to advance on
appeal. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 n.9
(Tex. Crim. App. 2008) ("In Texas, an Anders
brief need not specifically advance 'arguable' points
of error if counsel finds none, but it must provide record
references to the facts and procedural history and set out
pertinent legal authorities."); Stafford v.
State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).
Appellant's counsel has carefully discussed why, under
controlling authority, there is no reversible error in the
trial court's final order of termination. Counsel has
informed us that he has: (1) examined the record and found no
arguable grounds to advance on appeal; (2) served a copy of
the brief and appellate record on Appellant; and (3) informed
Appellant of her right to file a pro se
response. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87
S.Ct. at 1400; Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 510 n.3;
High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App.
[Panel Op.] 1978); see also Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at
409 n.23. Appellant has filed a pro se response, but
she does not raise any arguable issues.
receiving an Anders brief, we must conduct a full
examination of all the proceedings to determine whether the
case is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.
75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 349-50, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988). An
appeal is "wholly frivolous" or "without
merit" when it "lacks any basis in law or
fact." McCoy v. Court of Appeals, 486 U.S. 429,
438 n.10, 108 S.Ct. 1895, 1902 n.10, 100 L.Ed.2d 440 (1988).
We have reviewed the entire record and counsel's brief
and have found nothing that would arguably support an appeal.
See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827-28 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2005) ("Due to the nature of Anders
briefs, by indicating in the opinion that it considered the
issues raised in the briefs and reviewed the record for
reversible error but found none, the court of appeals met the
requirement of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure
47.1."); Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 509.
we affirm the trial court's order of termination. We also
remind Appellant's appointed appellate counsel that if
Appellant, after consulting with counsel, desires 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 re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27-28 (Tex.
2016); see In re G.P., 503 S.W.3d 531, 535 (Tex.
App.-Waco 2016, pet. denied); see also Tex. Fam.
Code Ann. § 107.016.
 The trial court found by clear and
convincing evidence that Appellant had violated Family Code
subsections 161.001(b)(1)(N) and (O) and that termination was
in the child's best interest. See Tex. Fam. Code
Ann. § 161.001(b).
 The parental rights of the child's
father were also terminated, but he has not appealed.
 The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
has held that "'the pro se response need
not comply with the rules of appellate procedure in order to
be considered. Rather, the response should identify for the
court those issues which the indigent appellant believes the
court should consider in deciding whether the case presents
any meritorious issues.'" Schulman, 252
S.W.3d at 409 ...