This is an appeal from a final order in which the trial court terminated the parental rights of the parents of J.E.T. ^[1] See T EX . F AM . C ODE A NN . § 161.001 (West Supp. 2021). J.E.T.’s mother and father filed a notice of appeal. We affirm.

The court-appointed counsel who represents both of J.E.T.’s parents on appeal has filed a brief in which counsel professionally and conscientiously examines the *2 record and applicable law and concludes that the appeal is frivolous and presents no issues of arguable merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d 403, 406–08 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978).

Counsel provided each Appellant with a copy of the brief. In compliance with Kelly v. State , 436 S.W.3d 313, 318–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014), counsel provided each Appellant with a form motion for pro se access to the appellate record and informed Appellants of their right to review the record and file a pro se response to counsel’s brief. We conclude that Appellants’ counsel has satisfied her duties under Anders , Schulman , and Kelly .

We note that neither Appellant has filed a pro se response to counsel’s Anders brief. Following the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman , we have independently reviewed the record in this cause, and we agree that the appeal is frivolous. We note that counsel has not filed a motion to withdraw in this court, which may have been premature if it had been filed in this court, and that “appointed counsel’s obligations can be satisfied by filing 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).

We affirm the trial court’s order of termination.

PER CURIAM February 3, 2022

Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,

Trotter, J., and Williams, J.

2

[1] We note that, in a separate order, the trial court appointed the mother of A.M.M. and J.E.T. as a possessory conservator of A.M.M. and appointed A.M.M.’s father as A.M.M.’s permanent managing conservator. The trial court did not terminate any parental rights with respect to A.M.M. In their notice of accelerated appeal, Appellants stated that they “desire to appeal the termination of their parental rights.” Thus, the order of termination as to J.E.T. only is the order at issue in this appeal.