Appellant S.R. appeals the trial court’s order terminating her parental rights to her children S.M.W. and S.-L.W. Her court-appointed appellate counsel filed a motion to withdraw and a brief containing a professional evaluation of the record, concluding there are no arguable grounds for reversal of the termination order. The brief satisfies the requirements of Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). See In re P.M. , 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 n.10 (Tex. 2016) (per curiam) (recognizing that Anders procedures apply in parental termination cases). Additionally, counsel represents that she provided S.R. with a copy of the brief and the motion to withdraw, advised S.R. of her right to review the record and file her own brief, and informed S.R. how to obtain a copy of the record, providing her with a form motion for access to the appellate record. We issued an order setting a

04-21-00045-CV deadline for S.R. to file a pro se brief. However, S.R. did not request the appellate record or file a pro se brief.

After reviewing the appellate record and appointed counsel’s brief, we conclude no plausible grounds exist for reversal of the termination order. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s termination order. We deny counsel’s motion to withdraw because it does not show good cause for withdrawal. See id. at 27 & n.7 (holding that counsel’s obligations in a parental termination case extend through exhaustion or waiver of all appeals and that withdrawal should be permitted by a court of appeals “only for good cause” (citing T EX . R. C IV . P. 10)).

Beth Watkins, Justice - 2 -