IN THE INTEREST OF O.S.S. AND L.L.S., CHILDREN
the 52nd District Court Coryell County, Texas Trial Court No.
Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Neill.
Appellant's parental rights to her children, O.S.S. and
L.L.S., 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, asserting that he 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) (applying
Anders to termination appeal).
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 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 the appellate
record on Appellant; and (3) informed Appellant of her right
to review the record and to file a pro se
response. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87
S.Ct. at 1400; Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313,
319-20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); 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 408-09. Appellant has not filed a pro se
response and has not raised 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 requirements 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) (per curiam); 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)(D), (E), (N), and (O) and that
termination was in the children's best interest.
See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(b).
 The parental rights of the
children's father were also terminated, but he has not
 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 n.23 (quoting Wilson v. State, 955
S.W.2d 693, 696-97 (Tex. App.-Waco 1997, order)).
 We note that counsel reviewed the
sufficiency of the evidence for ground E and determined it
was frivolous to attack that finding. We agree. See In re