in the Interest of N.N.F., a Child

Opinion

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed October 13, 2015.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-15-00440-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF N.N.F., A Child

On Appeal from the 315th District Court Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2013-06707J

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, V.A.T., appeals a final decree signed April 21, 2015, terminating his parental rights to the child who is the subject of this suit. Appellant filed a 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, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (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

2

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 July 22, 2015, a copy of the record and counsel’s brief were delivered to appellant and appellant was notified of the right to file a pro se response. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); 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

Panel consists of Justices Jamison, McCally and Wise.