IN THE INTEREST OF J. N.C., A CHILD
the County Court at Law Hill County, Texas Trial Court No.
Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Neill
Appellant's parental rights to her child, J.C., were
terminated following a jury 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) (per curiam) (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 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, motion to
withdraw, and 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.
Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's order of
counsel's motion to withdraw in accordance with In re
G.P., 503 S.W.3d 531, 534-36 (Tex. App.-Waco 2016, pet.
denied). If Appellant, after consulting with counsel, desires
to file a petition for review, Appellant's appellate
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." See In re
P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27-28 (Tex. 2016) (per curiam);
see also Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 107.016.
 Pursuant to the jury's finding,
the trial court signed an order of termination, finding by
clear and convincing evidence that Appellant had violated
Family Code subsections 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), (N), (O), and
(Q) and that termination was in the child's best
interest. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. §
 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 n.23 (quoting Wilson v. State, 955
S.W.2d 693, 696-97 (Tex. App.-Waco 1997, order) (per
 In this proceeding, Appellant did not
challenge Family Code subsections 161.001(b)(1)(D) or (E).
Therefore, the Texas Supreme Court's recent decision in
In re N.G., 577 S.W.3d 230 (Tex. 2019), does not
require us to review those grounds for termination. See
In re E.K., No. 10-19-00070-CV, 2019 ...