in the Interest of D.C, a Child ( 2005 )

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed February 10, 2005

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed February 10, 2005.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-04-00943-CV

____________

IN THE INTEREST OF D.C., a Child

On Appeal from the 313th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 04-00900J

M E M O R A N D U M   O P I N I O N

Appellant Michelle Robertson challenges the trial court=s order terminating her parental rights to her minor child, D.C. Appellant=s appointed counsel filed a brief in which he concludes the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. This Court has concluded that the briefing requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967) are appropriate and applicable in an appeal from an order terminating parental rights.  In re D.E.S., 135 S.W.3d 326, 330 (Tex. App.CHouston [14th Dist.] 2004, no pet.).  Counsel=s brief meets the requirements of Anders by 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).

A copy of counsel=s brief was delivered to appellant.  Appellant was advised of the right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se response.  See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).  As of this date, more than forty-five days have elapsed and 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

Judgment rendered and Memorandum Opinion filed February 10, 2005.

Panel consists of Chief Justice Hedges and Justices Fowler and Frost.