well-being, and failed to comply with the provisions of a court order that established the actions necessary to obtain the children’s return. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), (O) (West Supp. 2016). The jury also found that clear and convincing evidence showed that termination of S.J.’s and B.P.T.’s parental rights is in the children’s best interest. See id. § 161.001(b)(2). Both appellants’ court-appointed appellate attorneys have filed motions to withdraw and Anders briefs, in support of those motions, stating that after diligently reviewing the record, they believe that an appeal is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 1400, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967); see also In re K.M., 98 S.W.3d 774, 776-77 (Tex.App.— Fort Worth 2003, no pet.) (<HOLDING>). The briefs meet the requirements of Anders by
holding that in parental termination proceedings the parent is entitled to effective assistance of counsel recognizing that the statutory right to counsel in parental termination cases requires that the appointed counsel provide effective assistance recognizing this substantial interest in context of termination of parental rights holding that anders procedures apply in parental termination cases recognizing that where the juvenile code sets forth specific procedures governing termination actions those procedures apply to the exclusion of the rules of civil procedure