Opinion issued May 2 8 , 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01 - 1 4 - 00 092 - C V NO. 01 - 14 - 00097 - CV NO. 01 - 14 - 00098 - CV

——————————— IN THE INTEREST OF D. S . , D.S.M. AKA D.M. , D.R.K . , CHILD REN

On Appeal from the 31 2 th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No s . 2012 - 44551, 2012 - 038 40J, 2010 - 7872 2 1

MEMORANDUM OPINION

1 Appellate cause number 01

- 14

- 00092

- CV; trial court cause number 2012

- 44551. Appellate cause number 01

- 14

- 00097

- CV; trial court cause number 2012

- 03840J. Appellate cause number 01

- 14

- 00098

- CV; trial court cause number 2010

- 787 2 2.2

Appellant, Ebonee Shantrell Miles , appeals the trial co urt’s final order s terminating her parental rights to the three minor child ren , D.S., D.S.M . aka D.M. , and D.R.K . Appellant’s appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw, along with an Anders brief, asserting that the appeal s are without merit and that there are no arguable grounds for reversal. See Anders v. California , 38 6 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967). We affirm the trial court’s judgment s and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. T he procedures set forth in Anders are applic able to an appeal from a trial court’s order terminating parental rights when , as here, the appellant’s appointed appellate counsel concludes that there are no non

- frivolous issues to assert on appeal
. See In re D.D. , 279 S.W.3d 849, 849

– 50 (Tex. App.

— Dal las 2009, pet. denied); In re D.E.S. , 135 S.W.3d 326, 3 29 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, no pet.); In re K.D. , 127 S.W.3d 66, 67 (Tex. App.

— Hous ton [1st Dist.] 2003, no pet.). Counsel has filed an Anders brief in which he concludes that , after a t h orough review of the record, appellant’s appeal s of the termination of h er parental rights are frivolous and without merit. See Anders , 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; In re D.E.S. , 135 S.W.3d at 327, 3 30; In re K.D. , 127 S.W.3d at 67. Counsel has certified that he delivered a copy of the brief to appellant and has3

informed appellant of h er right to examine the appellate record s and to file a response. See In re K.D. , 127 S.W.3d at 67
. Appellant has not filed a response. We have indepe ndently reviewed the entire record in each appeal and counsel’s Anders brief. See Anders , 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400 ; In re D.E.S. , 135 S.W.3d at 330; In re K.D. , 127 S.W.3d at 67. We agree with counsel’ s assessment that the appeal s are frivolous and without merit. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment s of th e trial court and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw
. 2 Attorney Tristan H. Longino must immediately send the notice required by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 6.5(c) and file a co py of the notice with the Clerk of this Court. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 6.5(c). PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Bland , and Brown
.

2 Appointed counsel still has a duty to inform appellant of the result of these ap peal s and notify appellant that she may, on her own, pursue petition s for review in the Supreme Court of Texas. See In re K.D. , 127 S.W.3d 66, 68 n.3 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, no pet.).