C. O. v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, 03-17-00294-CV

Father C.O. appealed a trial court order terminating his parental rights to two minor children under Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001.
The trial court found by clear and convincing evidence multiple statutory grounds for termination and that termination was in the children’s best interest.
C.O. was represented on appeal by court-appointed counsel who filed an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw, concluding the appeal was frivolous.
Counsel certified he provided C.O. the Anders brief, informed him of his right to inspect the record and to file a pro se brief; C.O. did not file a pro se brief.
The Department waived filing an appellee brief unless C.O. filed a pro se brief that warranted response.
The Court of Appeals conducted a full record review pursuant to Anders/Penson and affirmed the termination, finding no arguable grounds for appeal; the court denied counsel’s motion to withdraw with instruction about possible further proceedings in the Texas Supreme Court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether appellate counsel correctly concluded the appeal is frivolous under Anders	C.O. (via counsel) implicitly contends no non-frivolous issues exist to advance	DFPS sought affirmance and waived a brief unless C.O. filed pro se issues	Court accepted Anders brief, reviewed the entire record, and held the appeal is frivolous and affirmed termination
Whether the record contains arguable grounds to reverse termination	C.O. (through Anders procedure) presented no viable grounds	Appellee maintained termination and best-interest findings supported	Court found nothing in the record that would arguably support an appeal and affirmed
Whether counsel may withdraw at this stage	Counsel moved to withdraw after filing Anders brief	DFPS no objection to affirmance; court must ensure counsel’s obligations continue for further review	Court denied counsel’s motion to withdraw and noted counsel’s continuing obligation if C.O. seeks review in the Texas Supreme Court
Whether the appellate court must conduct independent review after an Anders brief	N/A (C.O. had no argued positions)	DFPS relied on court’s independent review to confirm frivolousness	Court performed full examination under Penson and affirmed the trial court’s judgment

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (Appellate counsel must file brief raising any possible, nonfrivolous issues when seeking to withdraw)
Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (Appellate court must independently examine the record after an Anders brief)
Taylor v. Texas Dep’t of Protective & Regulatory Servs., 160 S.W.3d 641 (Tex. App.—Austin 2005) (applying Anders procedure in termination-of-parental-rights appeals)