Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed September 14, 2021.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-21-00272-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF J.P., E.P., V.P., Z.P., N.P., AND J.L., CHILDREN

On Appeal from the 314th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2019-04552J

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, J.L.P., appeals a final decree signed April 29, 2021, terminating 

her parental rights to the children who are the subject of this suit. Appellant filed a 

timely 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 (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, 811–13 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). The Anders

procedures are applicable to an appeal from the termination of parental rights when 
2

an appointed attorney concludes that there are no nonfrivolous 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 12, 2021, this court sent appellant a notice informing her of the right 

to file a pro se response along with a form to request the appellate record. 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 sixty 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.1

1 The trial court found that appellant (1) “knowingly placed or knowingly allowed the 

children to remain in conditions or surroundings which endanger the physical or emotional wellbeing of the children, pursuant to § 161.001(b)(1)(D), Texas Family Code”; (2) “engaged in 

conduct or knowingly placed the children with persons who engaged in conduct which endangers 

the physical or emotional well-being of the children, § 161.001(b)(1)(E), Texas Family Code”; 

(3) “had her parent-child relationship terminated with respect to another child based on a finding 

that the mother’s conduct was in violation of § 161.001(b)(1)(D) or (E), Texas Family Code, or 

substantially equivalent provisions of the law of another state, pursuant to § 161.001(b)(1)(E), 

Texas Family Code”; and (4) “constructively abandoned the children . . . pursuant to 

§ 161.001(b)(1)(N), Texas Family Code.” The Texas Supreme Court has not decided whether a 

court of appeals is required to address findings in an Anders disposition of a termination of 

parental rights on predicate grounds D, E, or M. See In re E.K., 608 S.W.3d 815, 815-16 (Tex. 

2020) (Green, J., concurring in denial of petition for review) (citing In re N.G., 577 S.W.3d 230 

(Tex. 2019)). Our court has not done so. See e.g., In re K.J.R., No. 14-20-00479-CV, 2021 WL 

244985, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Jan. 26, 2021, no pet.) (mem. op.); In re

A.J.A.R., No. 14-20-00084-CV, 2020 WL 4260343, at *9-10 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 

July 24, 2020, pet. denied) (mem. op.); In re L.M.W., No. 14-19-00925-CV, 2020 WL 1181761, 

at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Mar. 12, 2020, no pet.) (mem. op.); In re M.T.B., No. 14-

20-00385-CV, 2020 WL 6576074, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Nov. 10, 2020, pet. 

denied) (mem. op.).
3

Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

/s/ Frances Bourliot

Justice

Panel consists of Justices Wise, Bourliot, and Zimmerer.