Opinion issued December 11, 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01 - 14 - 00489 - CV NO. 01 - 14 - 00490 - CV 1

——————————— IN THE INTEREST OF K . P. M., K. S. M., AND K. W. M., CHILDREN

IN THE INTEREST OF K . P. M., CHILD
On Appeal from the 247th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause Nos. 2007 - 23177 and 2012 - 73293

MEMORANDUM OPINION In these consolidated appeals, the mother , T .L.T. , appeals the trial court’s final orders terminating her parental rights to he r fou r minor children, K.P.M.,

1 Appellate cause no. 01

- 14

- 00489

- CV; trial court cause no. 2007

- 23177. Appellate cause n o. 01

- 14

- 00490

- CV; trial court cause n o. 2012

- 73293.2

K.S.M., and K.W.M. in appellate cause number 01

- 14

- 00489

- CV, and K. P. M. in appellate cause number 01

- 14

- 00490

- CV
. 2 Appellant’s appointed counsel has filed
a motion to withdraw, along with an Anders brief, asserting that both appeals are without merit and that there are no arguable grounds for reversal. See Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967). We affirm the trial court’s judgments and g rant counsel’s motion to withdraw in each appeal
. The procedures set forth in Anders are applicable to an appeal from a trial court’s order terminating parental rights when, as here, 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. A pp.
— Dallas 2009, pet. denied); In re D.E.S. , 135 S.W.3d 326, 329 (Tex. App.

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

— Houst on [1st Dist.] 2003, no pet.). Counsel has filed an Anders brief in which he concludes that, afte r a thorough review of the record, appellant’s appeals of the termination of her 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, 330; In re K.D. , 127 S.W.3d at 67. Counsel’ s brief meets the minimum Anders requirements by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and stating why there are no arguable grounds
2 To protect the identit ies of the minor children, we have used only the full initials of the minors and their mo ther. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 9.8(b)(2).3

for reversal on appeal. See Anders , 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400. Here,
c ounsel has certified that he delivered a copy of his motion to withdraw, Anders brief , and copies of the record s to appellant and has informed her of her right to review the records and file a pro se response. See In re K.D. , 127 S.W.3d at 67 ; see also Kelly v. State , 436 S.W.3d 313, 322 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Appellant has filed a pro se response , after receiving an extension to review the records , and appellee filed a brief in response
. We have independently reviewed the entire record in each appeal, and we conclude that no reversible error exists in the record s , that there are no arguable grounds for review, and that therefore the appeal s are frivolous
. See Anders , 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400 (emphasizing that reviewing court

— and not counsel

— determines, after full ex amination of proceedings, whether the appeal is wholly frivolous); In re D.E.S. , 135 S.W.3d at 330; In re K.D. , 127 S.W.3d at 67. We have reviewed counsel’s Anders brief , appellant’s pro se response and appellee’s brief, and agree with counsel’s assessmen t that the appeals are frivolous and without merit. Accordingly, we affirm the judgments of the trial court and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw in each appeal
. 3 Attorney Tristan H. Longino must

3 Appointed counsel still has a duty to inform appellant of the result of these appeals and notify h e r that she may, on her own, pursue petitions for review in the Supreme Court of Texas. See In re K.D. , 127 S.W.3d at 68 n.3.4

immediately send the notice required by Texas Rule of Appe llate Procedure 6.5(c) and file a copy of the notice with the Clerk of this Court. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 6.5(c). We dismiss any pending motions as moot. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Higley, and Brown.