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-CV1

———————————

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 her four minor children, K.P.M., 

 

1 Appellate cause no. 01-14-00489-CV; trial court cause no. 2007-23177.

Appellate cause no. 01-14-00490-CV; trial court cause no. 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 grant 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. App.—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.—Houston [1st Dist.] 

2003, no pet.).

Counsel has filed an Anders brief in which he concludes that, after 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 identities of the minor children, we have used only the full 

initials of the minors and their mother. See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.8(b)(2).
3

for reversal on appeal. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400. Here, 

counsel has certified that he delivered a copy of his motion to withdraw, Anders

brief, and copies of the records 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 records, that there are no arguable 

grounds for review, and that therefore the appeals are frivolous. See Anders, 386 

U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400 (emphasizing that reviewing court—and not 

counsel—determines, after full examination 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 assessment 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 her 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 Appellate Procedure 6.5(c) 

and file a copy of the notice with the Clerk of this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P.

6.5(c). We dismiss any pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Higley, and Brown.