IN THE INTEREST OF CHILD v. << (2017)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, K.B., appeals a final decree terminating her parental rights to the child who is the subject of this suit. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal.

Appellant's appointed counsel filed a brief in which she concludes the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). The Anders procedures are applicable to an appeal from the termination of parental rights when an appointed attorney concludes that there are no non-frivolous issues to assert on appeal. In re D.E.S., 135 S.W.3d 326, 329 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, no pet.).

On November 8, 2016, a copy of counsel's brief was delivered to appellant and appellant was notified of the right to request the record and file a pro se response. In re D.E.S., 135 S.W.3d at 329–30. More than twenty-five days have elapsed and as of this date, no pro se response has been filed.

We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel's brief and agree the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. Further, we find no reversible error in the record. A discussion of the brief would add nothing to the jurisprudence of the state.

Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM